"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."
"But that does not mean that litigants have a right to hide them from the public once they are implicated in court proceedings."
The case helps illustrate why the legal rules surrounding when parties can litigate under pseudonyms are so important.
"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 ...."
[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.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks