But the court insisted that the alleged leaker file identifying information under seal with the court, notwithstanding the alleged leaker's claim that the court computers could be hacked.
"[A]n individual's name is not sensitive data in and of itself, and Plaintiff does not explain how publication of Plaintiff's name would place Plaintiff's data at further risk."
(The appeal is an appeal to the District Court, so it will likely be resolved fairly quickly.) [UPDATE 6/20/23: The District Court affirmed the disclosure order; the guarantors' names will be released 6/22, at least unless they "seek to withdraw from" being guarantors.]
The court had allowed her to litigate pseudonymously at earlier stages in the process, but just held that this doesn’t extend to trial.
The case had involved a doctor who had sued over his license being restricted based on allegations of mental incompetency.
The New York Times asked that their names, and information related to the bail hearing, be released.
"Plaintiff was not informed by his legal counsel prior to filing suit of the potential for immediate disclosure of his name if his Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym was denied."
[UPDATE: It turns out that the Maryland intermediate appellate court reached the opposite result for the same plaintiff; post bumped up so readers can see the update, which is available in the second half of this post.].]
"By maintaining access to these records, the Court promotes the public's interest 'in ascertaining what evidence and records the District Court ... relied upon in reaching [its] decision,' and the Court provides 'the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its fairness.'"
"[P]ublic access is designed not only to allow the press and the public to follow high-profile cases, but also to permit ongoing and future access. Law students or legal scholars review case files for law review articles, attorneys review past cases when similar litigation arises, and litigation may be a source of information for policy-makers considering, for example, safety regulations or for journalists reporting more broadly on either the courts or the subject matter of particular litigation."
The lawyer's "personal interest in avoiding the 'reputational harm' that she might suffer if the public were made aware of the 'very serious allegations here'" "cannot meet the 'weighty' standard for overriding the presumptions of open records and public access."
Retraction Watch prevails in a California appellate case.
"Defendants are ORDERED to identify the lawyer responsible for this motion. The lawyer, by January 3, 2023, is ORDERED to submit an explanation of why the lawyer thought this was a justified motion. When I see the explanation, I will consider whether subsequent proceedings are appropriate."
The Second Circuit reverses such a limited sealing order, and sends the case back to the district court for further analysis.
“[I]t is reasonable to expect the person invoking the Court’s jurisdiction to set aside some of his privacy. Many statutes, such as the ADA [...] require a plaintiff to set aside his [] privacy and disclose information that he [] may otherwise wish to keep confidential.”
Among other things, the court concludes that, "given that Plaintiff alleges that his 'personal background as an Arab-American and Muslim' was in part responsible for his lack of a traditional diagnosis of ADHD, his personal background may make him particularly vulnerable to the harms of disclosure."
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
