Judge denies pseudonym for winner in public case against ex

By Kate Northrop

The Maine lottery winner of a $1.3 billion Mega Millions jackpot will have to reveal his identity if he chooses to proceed with a nasty court battle against the mother of his child in which she allegedly revealed his win to others.

A judge denied the option to remain anonymous to a $1.3 billion Mega Millions jackpot lottery winner, deciding that his unusually sudden wealth does not make him an exception to the rule regarding available information in public-facing court battles.

In February 2023, one lucky winner from Maine claimed a $1.3 billion Mega Millions jackpot under the limited liability company LaKoma Island Investments LLC, and in doing so was able to hide his name from the public.

In November of that year, he launched a scathing lawsuit against the mother of his child, accusing her of revealing the news of his windfall to others after she had signed an NDA saying she must keep the jackpot win a secret until their daughter comes of age in 2032.

Documents identify the winner under the pseudonym "John Doe" and the mother of his child as "Sara Smith." His motivation for the NDA and lawsuit, he argued, was to avoid "irreparable harm of allowing the media or the public in general to discover" his identity, physical location, assets, and information about their daughter. In exchange for signing the NDA, he would have provided Sara with financial support and ongoing security resources.

But things took a turn when Sara and John's father bit back with a lawsuit of their own, accusing John of being the one to reveal the win. Documents exposed a heated mess revolving around him kidnapping their daughter, withdrawing her from school, and Sara having to file court motions to get her back.

The jackpot winner's stance took a complete 180.

"I made the mistake of telling my father that I had won the lottery without having him sign a confidentiality agreement," John said in a refiled sanctions motion.

Sara additionally described being harassed and followed by John's security team in court proceedings, recalling unmarked cars sitting parked outside her home, strange clicking noises over the phone, and numerous "unexplained dropped calls."

John's father said in a sworn declaration filed in federal court that his son got angry when he and his wife refused to swear off his relationship with Sara, the mother of their grandchild.

Last Thursday, U.S. District Judge John Woodcock ruled that John will not be allowed to proceed in court under a pseudonym, acknowledging the "Catch-22" if the case were to proceed to a public trial.

"Even if Plaintiff were to win on his claims, his identity and confidential information would be revealed to the public and the media," Woodcock said in his decision. "He would effectively lose the privacy war and subject himself and his minor daughter to the irreparable harm he brought suit to avoid."

Prior to the ruling, John filed a motion for a closed trial that would take "safeguards" to ensure personal identifying information of all parties involved would remain anonymous. Such precautions would involve keeping the entirety of the trial closed to the public and media and that all testimony would be submitted to the jury by telephone or audio-only Zoom calls. John said he was prepared to appeal the ruling if this were denied.

Woodcock said that the court denied the closed trial request on the grounds that wealth alone is "not a legitimate reason to restrict the right of public access" and that John's "new-found wealth allows him to afford levels of security and isolation not generally available to the general public, thus mitigating the impact of the public revelation of his new financial status."

The ruling acknowledged the lengthy myriad of risks John listed in his request for a closed trial: kidnapping for ransom, stalking and harassment, unwanted attention to his daughter, increased attention to other family members, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, impersonation and financial fraud, media attention, extortion, solicitation for financial support, and disruptions and restricted movement in daily life.

However, the court determined, these fears do not outweigh the public's interest in open courts.

"While the presumption of public access is not absolute, it is paramount and an essential component of our legal system, so important because it allows the citizenry to monitor the functioning of the courts, thereby insuring quality, honesty, and respect for our legal system."

The court also found that John's request for audio-only testimony would negatively impact the credibility of statements from witnesses, especially if a jury cannot physically see "facial expressions, body movements, and all other non-verbal responses and expressions."

Further, preventing the jury from learning about witnesses' identities, such as age, education, marital status, children, life experiences, and more, would deny access to identifying information that could be helpful in reaching a fair conclusion, the court reasoned.

Although he has expressed intent to file an appeal, the lottery winner is now met with a black-and-white choice: drop the lawsuit against his ex or reveal his identity to the rest of the world.