Right of Access
Injunction Against Publicly Identifying Pseudonymous Litigants Is Content-Based Prior Restraint,
and thus presumptively a First Amendment violation (though here the presumption was rebutted by national security interests).
"Once the [Rainbow Flag] Cat Is out of the Bag, the Ball Game Is Over"
No pseudonymity for teacher challenging removal of pride flags from classroom, because his identity had already been disclosed through public records requests.
Seventh Circuit Reaffirms: No Pseudonymity in Title IX Suits Claiming Wrongful Discipline
Many other courts do generally allow pseudonymity in those particular cases, but the Seventh Circuit disagrees.
Petitioner's Regret No Grounds for Sealing of 8-Year-Old Restraining Order Documents
Petitioner's new-found "public figure" status, and concerns that records are "impeding his employment, professional credibility, and personal safety," don't justify sealing, either.
Court Dismisses Suit Against N.Y. Times & Serial Productions over The Idiot Podcast
The podcast is M. Gessen’s story about cousin Allen Gessen (who is the plaintiff in this case) and his murder-for-hire conviction. Extra juicy tidbit in this case: Venue!
Court Refuses to Block Continued Distribution of DOGE Witness Deposition Videos
"[T]he materials at issue concern the conduct of public officials acting in their official capacities, which substantially diminishes any cognizable privacy interest and weighs against restriction."
No Pseudonymity for Plaintiffs Alleging Sean Combs (P. Diddy) Sexually Assaulted Them
The Second Circuit just affirmed lower court decisions so holding.
No Pseudonymity for Man Suing Harvard Alleging Jews Aim "to Exterminate or Enslave All Non-Jews"
The plaintiff claims he was denied admission to Harvard Business School, apparently because he is a "non-veteran, non-queer, non-Jewish White male applicant[]."
"Any Business in America Would Rather Not Have Their Internal Documents out in the Public"
"But that does not mean that litigants have a right to hide them from the public once they are implicated in court proceedings."
Multi-Billion Dollar Corporation Drops Suit Against Inter-American Development Bank, After Court Holds It Can't Sue as "Doe Corporation"
The case helps illustrate why the legal rules surrounding when parties can litigate under pseudonyms are so important.
Court Refuses to Seal Case Involving Government's Motion to Authorize Disclosure of Tax Returns
"The substantial public interests implicated by questions of the proper scope of Executive power and the statutory limits on access to tax information warrant public disclosure. While this case, and ... this decision, are now unsealed, the underlying Application and its supporting materials will remain under seal, at least while the investigation remains active ...."
Judge Reverses Earlier Decision: Ex-Employee Can't Sue Planned Parenthood for Race Discrimination as a "Jane Doe"
[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!]
No Pseudonymity for Former Federal Employees Suing Over Mass Firings
"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."
