No Pseudonymity for Plaintiffs Challenging Employer's COVID-19 Protocols
"[C]ourts should not permit parties to proceed pseudonymously just to protect the parties' professional or economic life."
"[C]ourts should not permit parties to proceed pseudonymously just to protect the parties' professional or economic life."
"Plaintiff's allegations are emotionally and politically charged, and ... Plaintiff is a member of certain groups subject to discrimination. That, however, is true of a plethora of cases in the federal courts and has generally not been understood to authorize anonymous pleading."
The court stresses, though, that "The complaint includes no claims brought solely on behalf of Plaintiff Doe," and "Based on the description of the claims, including when and where the alleged vandalism took place and photographs of the vandalism, it appears defendants could adequately defend themselves against the claims without knowing Plaintiff Doe's identity."
So holds the Eleventh Circuit, upholding the district court's decision—but the court's standard of review suggests that the exact oppose district court decision might have been upheld, too.
Plaintiff had alleged that being publicly identified would put him at risk of physical harm.
So the District Court in Sen. Mastriano's case just held.
"While this case involves a statutory conferral of anonymity, the legislature is not exempt from the Constitution."
The plaintiff says she "thought the whole time it was going to be confidential"—but court cases are public.
A reminder to libel plaintiffs (and other plaintiffs).
Sen. Mastriano (who is running for reelection to the state senate, and who ran in 2022 for Governor) is suing for, among other things, libel—but trying to keep the allegedly libelous material under seal.
Sen. Mastriano (who is running for reelection to the state senate, and who ran in 2022 for Governor) is suing for, among other things, libel—but trying to keep the allegedly libelous material under seal.
"Professor Volokh may not ... publicly disclose Plaintiff's name or personal identifying information in any future writings, speeches, or other public discourse."
The defendant had alleged that he, his family, and his lawyer had been threatened by the public, but the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the trial court wasn't given adequate evidence to justify sealing.
Should pseudonymous litigants, and any precedents set in their cases, be known by the initials of the law firms that represent them?
A California trial court so ruled, and the California Court of Appeal just upheld that decision.
The case involved a public records request to identify the "six or seven pretty big legal conservative heavyweights" whom Gov. DeSantis labeled as "trusted advisors for his judicial appointments to the Florida Supreme Court."
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10