The city of Annapolis wants an anonymous lawsuit about City Dock to be dismissed because it did not agree to allow the filer to be anonymous, court documents say.

The lawsuit was filed in late October on behalf of a “John Doe” by Annapolis lawyer Edward Hartman. It challenges approvals made by the Historic Preservation Commission related to a flood protection project, claiming the commission violated city law when approving measures such as the demolition of the harbormaster’s office without presenting plans of a replacement building. In addition, the suit alleges violations of rules of procedure during public hearings.

The suit describes the anonymous person as an Annapolis resident who previously testified at a public hearing about City Dock’s potential impact on property values and real estate taxes. It notes the filer’s identity is “confidential by agreement with the City of Annapolis,” which the city has repeatedly denied.

Annapolis Mayor Gavin Buckley says the suit is “baseless” and “politically motivated” and wants it dismissed.

“It’s utterly unserious, and even a non lawyer can find the grammatical and logical errors in these three pages,” Alderman Harry Huntley, a Democrat representing Ward 1, said Tuesday. “I have the utmost confidence that our office of law will swat down this lawsuit.”

There are cases where the parties agree to anonymity, what Gregory Dolin, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, calls being “under seal.” In a Nov. 6 email to the Capital Gazette, Hartman said his client wishes to remain anonymous because they fear retaliation.

“When you file cases anonymously, you can’t just keep your information from everyone involved, from the judge, from the other side. You just disclose it to them, but under seal, so the public will still know you as John Doe or Jane Doe or whatever. But obviously the other side knows who you are, because they need to get depositions if they need to do kind of things like that … if they need to serve subpoenas, they need to know who they need to serve it on. So this idea that you can keep the name from everyone that’s not going to fly ever,” Dolin said in a phone interview Wednesday.

Dolin added that even when there is a reason, typically it is in cases such as a sexual assault.

“When there’s some sort of non-minute threat to somebody’s safety, it could be brought in on an anonymous but generally speaking, the mere fact that you don’t want people to know who you are, because you know that might cost you some friends, or people might stop patronizing your business, or whatever else that’s generally not viewed as sufficient,” he said.

The timeline for construction on the project has already been delayed as the city awaits the approval of a $33 million grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The suit presents further delays; however, the city said last week that businesses “cannot afford to wait.”

The city has since asked to dismiss the suit because the filer’s confidential identity prevents them from mounting a defense.

“The allegation regarding an agreement between parties as to the confidentiality of Petition is patently false,” Michael Lyles, attorney for the city, wrote in a motion Nov. 7. “The City never made any such agreement. Moreover, because the identity of the petitioner is unknown, the City is unaware as to whether or not Petitioner appeared at the hearings, testified at the hearings, and/or provided information regarding residency and/or the alleged impact on his property value and real estate taxes.”

Hartman said that he will respond to the city’s filings “within the deadline for doing so.”

Have a news tip? Contact Megan Loock at mloock@baltsun.com or 443-962-5771.