[UPDATE 11/17/2015 10:21 am: Sorry, post title originally accidentally omitted the "as a 'Jane Doe'" (which of course is what this decision is about, see below); I've revised the title to include it. My apologies!]
"The fact that disclosure means Plaintiffs 'could be deemed litigious' or that future employers 'may treat Plaintiffs' association with this litigation as a red flag' is not sufficient to allege a substantial privacy interest."
No, says, a District Court judge.
"he must do so under his true name and accept the risk that certain unflattering details may come to light over the course of the litigation."
Not enough to get pseudonymity for plaintiff's employment discrimination claim, at least in S.D. Tex.
A lawyer tried to seal a copy of an earlier judge's order that had made certain claims about the lawyer.
"[T]he heart of the district court's analysis in denying Brooks's initial motion was its conclusion that the litigation would not require Brooks to disclose the information that he had filed under seal. But, in some respects, the district court's order did just that—it put the information that Brooks had filed under seal on the public docket."
Today's D.C. Circuit decision muddies the matter still further.
The Seventh Circuit is generally much more hesitant than courts in other circuits to allow pseudonymity in such cases.
"[A]llowing plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym could enable her to evade judicial oversight under the vexatious litigant rules by obscuring her litigation history and identity across multiple cases."
So holds the Ohio Supreme Court.
"Federal judges and their court staff are not legal pawns to be deployed in secret by wealthy disputants trying to get private answers to their problems."
"Unsealing the May 6 Order is essential for the public to see the government's overreach in searching cellphones without probable cause and [is essential for] publishing precedent as courts unpack future such requests."
I haven't been closely following the many filings in the case, but I'm very glad the court is enforcing a fairly broad right of public access here.
which is to say the court that is the most in favor of public access to court records in such cases.
The order also covered the man's family and public officials, as well as the lawyers in the case.
Specifically, the court holds that parents can't sue under a pseudonym together with their minor child, even though state rules provides that minors' names are pseudonymized.
So holds the Eleventh Circuit.
But one of the pro-pseudonymity decisions on which the court relies (which also involved a lawsuit alleging anti-Semitic behavior) was actually reversed two weeks ago.
"However legitimate [plaintiff's] concerns, a party's wealth alone is not a legitimate reason to restrict the right of public access."
