No Pseudonymity for Plaintiffs Alleging Sean Combs (P. Diddy) Sexually Assaulted Them
The Second Circuit just affirmed lower court decisions so holding.
The Second Circuit just affirmed lower court decisions so holding.
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[]."
"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.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.