Maine’s largest lottery winner is looking to dismiss his legal action against a former partner who allegedly disclosed his $1.35 billion jackpot to his parents after a judge ruled that he could not remain anonymous.
The individual, known only as “John Doe” in legal papers, filed a lawsuit in November 2023 against the mother of his child, accusing her of breaching a non-disclosure agreement by sharing news of his win with his father and stepmother.
$100K Compensation Per Disclosure
The plaintiff sought a court order prohibiting his ex-partner, identified as Sara Smith, from disclosing any more details about the jackpot.
He also requested that Smith reveal who else she had informed and pay damages of at least $100,000 for each unauthorized disclosure.
As per the lawsuit, the non-disclosure agreement aimed to “ensure the safety and security” of Doe, Smith, and their child, as well as prevent any “irreparable damage” that could result from the public or media knowing their identities and whereabouts.
Smith’s legal team denied any violation of the non-disclosure agreement and claimed that the lawsuit was an attempt to pressure her during an ongoing custody dispute.
In a court filing, Smith alleged that Doe had hired a security detail to monitor her and their child daily.
Dilemma
Doe’s decision to drop the lawsuit comes after the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling in April 2025 that denied his request for a closed trial to protect his identity.
The appellate panel concurred with the lower court judge’s view that a closed trial would conflict with the fundamental principles of court proceedings in the country.
In the motion to dismiss, Doe’s attorneys acknowledged that their client was in a difficult situation.
“…[E]ven if plaintiff were to win on his claims, his identity and confidential information would be revealed to the media and public, which is exactly what he brought suit to avoid,” they wrote.
Smith’s lawyer, Peter Brann, stated to the Portland Press Herald on Wednesday (September 16) that he would oppose the dismissal motion as it was filed “without prejudice.”
“Which means that they can turn around and file another baseless lawsuit against the defendant tomorrow,” Brann said. “And that, I do not want. … It should never have been filed to begin with.”