A secretive lottery winner’s effort to sue the mother of his child for exposing his $1.35 billion windfall has backfired, igniting a public courtroom battle over privacy, power, and the right to know.
At a Glance
- Maine Trust for Local News challenges sealed court documents in jackpot case
- “John Doe” alleges the mother of his child broke a nondisclosure deal
- Judge rules against private trial, citing open court principles
- Plaintiff seeks over $100,000 in damages tied to exposure of his identity
- Case raises tensions between wealth-driven privacy and judicial transparency
Conflict Between Confidentiality and Open Justice
A $1.35 billion Mega Millions winner in Maine is now at the center of a public legal storm after trying—and failing—to keep his identity and legal fight confidential. Using the alias “John Doe” and a Delaware-based entity, LaKoma Island Investments, the man sued the mother of his child, Sara Smith, for allegedly violating a nondisclosure agreement by telling family members about his lottery win.
But efforts to shield the lawsuit from public scrutiny unraveled when federal Judge John A. Woodcock denied Doe’s request for a closed trial, emphasizing the foundational legal principle of open justice. The Maine Trust for Local News, the state’s largest media company, has since pushed to unseal court documents, asserting that public access is essential in cases involving such immense financial and societal stakes.
Watch CBS News’ report on the ongoing legal fight between the lottery winner and the media.
The lawsuit reveals not only a bitter dispute between former partners but also broader questions about how courts should balance privacy concerns against public transparency—especially when massive wealth is involved. The plaintiff argues that the visibility of the case puts him at personal and financial risk, citing the dangers of becoming a public target.
Wealth and the Weight of Secrecy
Judge Woodcock’s stance was unequivocal: litigants cannot selectively invoke secrecy when public interest looms large. “They cannot choose to sue over matters related to billion-dollar transactions, and then try to conceal central matters in the litigation,” said Benjamin D. Schutz, an attorney for the Maine Trust, referencing the hypocrisy of filing such a high-profile suit under the guise of privacy.
Doe’s legal filings seek over $100,000 in damages, an injunction to prevent further disclosures, and continued anonymity through pseudonymous filings. Yet the unraveling began with a key witness—his own father—who testified that his son personally informed him of the windfall, contradicting claims of confidentiality. “You are not the son I knew,” the father reportedly told him, reflecting a rift rooted in betrayal and mistrust.
The Maine Trust, while acknowledging the sensitive nature of personal wealth, maintains that the public’s right to observe how justice unfolds overrides an individual’s desire to manage their image behind closed doors.
Transparency vs. Control
According to The Independent, Doe used a Delaware-registered LLC to anonymously collect a lump-sum prize of more than $500 million after taxes. That structure, while legal, became central to arguments over whether financial privilege should grant access to secrecy not afforded to ordinary citizens.
In court papers, lawyers representing the media emphasized that secrecy in such a consequential case undermines trust in the judiciary. Without scrutiny, they argue, the justice system becomes vulnerable to manipulation by those with the resources to shield themselves.
The case now symbolizes a modern Catch-22: the richer the stakes, the higher the temptation to keep the legal playing field tilted in the shadows. But as Judge Woodcock reminded both parties, justice is designed to be equal for the rich and the poor—and that means doing it in the light.
