Hometown Gas & Grill in Lebanon, which sold a winning ticket for the $1.35 billion Mega Millions jackpot in 2023. Derek Davis/Portland Press Herald

A federal judge has denied a request from Maine’s biggest lottery winner to have a closed trial over allegations that his ex violated a nondisclosure agreement to protect his identity.

After purchasing the winning $1.35 billion Mega Millions ticket more than three years ago, the man sued his ex-girlfriend in U.S. District Court in an anonymous complaint. He was allowed to use pseudonyms for himself and the woman in initial court records, but that protection will not extend to a trial, U.S. District Judge John Woodcock ruled Thursday.

Woodcock said the request for the trial to be closed is a “nonstarter” that “runs hard against historic concept of what the courts are and what they are not in this country.”

In Maine, lottery winners are not required to disclose their names. This particular winner has gone to great lengths to conceal his identity, even claiming his winnings through an LLC registered in Delaware, which doesn’t require public disclosure of who created the organization.

His lawsuit began to backfire last year after a judge agreed to unseal records that laid out the lottery winner’s requests for anonymity. The orders, which still do not disclose his identity, were a win for the Maine Trust for Local News, which owns the Portland Press Herald and intervened in the case in late 2023.

The trust’s attorneys have previously said they do not plan to challenge the lottery winner’s use of pseudonyms — but did object to the man’s request to have a closed trial, citing historic common-law and First Amendment public access rights to trials. The woman’s attorneys also called for a public trial, should he refuse to dismiss what they’ve alleged is a baseless case. 

Thursday’s ruling means that if the case goes to trial, the media and the public will be able to attend.

His attorneys filed an appeal Monday, further delaying the case, which was filed roughly a year and a half ago.

They’ve previously argued the situation places their client in a “Catch-22”; even if the lottery winner were to succeed at trial, they’ve written, “his identity and confidential information would be revealed to the public and the media; he would effectively lose the privacy war and subject himself and his minor daughter to the irreparable harm he brought suit to avoid.”

His ex, an emergency room nurse in Dracut, Massachusetts, has argued in records that the entire case is a ruse designed to pressure her into giving up custody of their child.

The lawsuit is centered around the lottery winner’s allegation that his ex violated their nondisclosure agreement by telling his father about the winning ticket. But then his father told the court, under oath, that it was his son who told him about the winnings.

The lottery winner then attempted to amend his lawsuit to accuse his ex of violating their contract by telling her attorney about his wealth while preparing for a child custody hearing. A judge determined that couldn’t have violated their contract because she was covered by attorney-client privilege.

The woman’s attorneys are urging the lottery winner to drop the suit.

“To prevail, Plaintiff would need to prove his unfounded allegations in a public trial, thereby defeating the point of the NDA and the lawsuit,” her attorneys wrote. “Plaintiff should recognize that reality and dismiss this ill-advised lawsuit.”

In his order, Woodcock disagreed with the lottery winner that there is no presumption of public access to civil trial proceedings. He also rejected the man’s alternative requests to limit testimony to audio-only and to use fake names for the parties and their witnesses.

The judge did not dispute there are limited circumstances that could allow for a limited public presence, especially when the privacy of third parties is at stake (like the lottery winner’s daughter, who Woodcock agreed would only be identified by her initials in court.)

But the plaintiff failed to prove how, should his name be released, it would endanger his daughter, Woodcock ruled.

“By the Court’s reckoning, one of Mr. Doe’s main points is that because he is now wealthy, the consequences of his filing this lawsuit are different for him as opposed to other less financially fortunate individuals,” Woodcock wrote. “He fears his new-found wealth will make him the target of an inquisitive and occasionally malevolent people …  However legitimate his concerns, a party’s wealth alone is not a legitimate reason to restrict the right of public access.

“Indeed, as he notes in his motion for leave to proceed under pseudonym, Mr. Doe’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,” Woodcock continued.