"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.
A federal court rejects plaintiff's arguments "that sealing ... is required because she is being 'slandered and libeled' and '[m]aking [her] information public would magnify the effects of [defendants'] wrongdoing' rather than right those wrongs."
even when plaintiff's lawsuit was connected to her having been allegedly sexually assaulted, which has often (but not always) been seen as a basis for allowing pseudonymity.
The court concludes that this justification doesn't generally let plaintiffs sue pseudonymously in libel or disclosure of private facts that seek damages.
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.'"
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
