"Plaintiff is entitled ... to make his own judgment about whether disclosing his identity under seal to the Court would pose an inordinate risk to his personal safety. But he is not entitled ... to special dispensation from the well-established requirements of the law."
he has a right to know how and why the government took that action.”
But that’s not adequate reason to allow them to litigate pseudonymously, a district court rules.
A good illustration of the strong policy of openness in American court cases, even when defendants argue that unfounded allegations in court records are intruding on their privacy and damaging their reputations.
The court required the university defendants to keep plaintiff's identity confidential (common in pseudonymous Title IX cases), but refused to extend this to media, students, and others.
a new article of mine, is now available at the Journal of Law & Religion.
[UPDATE: Added a brief discussion of pseudonymity and class actions.]
and a much more common rejection of plaintiff-side pseudonymity.
"Appellant wants the option to hide behind a shield of anonymity in the event he is unsuccessful in proving his claim, but he would surely identify himself if he were to prove his claims."
The case stemmed from user challenges asking that a public library remove Gender Queer: A Memoir, or at least keep children from getting it.
"Plaintiff states that he was not aware that his complaint would be made public, and he suggests that, under Korean law, the personal information of litigants is not made public." But "[w]hether or not he intended to do so, by initiating this action in a United States District Court, Plaintiff has made his name a matter of public record."
you argue that you're losing job opportunities because employers see that decision.
And the case in which the student made such a claim can't be sealed, either.
"Applicant's warning of a prima facie violation of Japanese law's privacy protections fails to constitute a harm severe enough" to justify pseudonymity.
The motion allows early dismissal of a lawsuit, here the lawsuit that aimed to block UC Irvine from responding to a public records request from the Center for Scientific Integrity (the Retraction Watch people).
The opinion was decided July 21, but was originally issued sealed; it was just unsealed today, in response to my motion to unseal.
Like other features of legal procedure—such as the jury trial, the mechanism for appointing judges, the availability of appeal—pseudonymity both deeply affects the fairness of litigation and, often, the substantive outcomes.
"[T]he fate of Plaintiff's claims hinges to some extent on the truth or falsity of Defendant's statements regarding Plaintiff's conviction of a crime. Whether Defendant's statements are false—a determination that relies at least in part on Plaintiff's criminal records—is directly relevant to the public."
I had asserted the contrary, arguing that the state allowance of pseudonymity in trying to get removal from the list didn't justify pseudonymity in a federal court lawsuit seeking damages for such placement; but the court disagreed.
The decision came despite the applicant's objection, ten months after the name change, that the change was needed to prevent "potential endangerment and/or discrimination through publicly disclosed record of the transgender applicant."
holds the Second Circuit, though it leaves it to the trial court to consider the facts further.
Two Central District of California case reach different results.
"There is an inherent inequality in allowing an accuser to proceed pseudonymously while the defendant is forced to defend himself publicly."
An illustration that courts are often willing to reconsider stipulated sealing and pseudonymization decisions when members of the public or media object.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks