"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."
"The disciplinary proceedings arose from Plaintiff's development of an 'artificial intelligence-based learning tool,' with another student, which the University's Honor Council eventually concluded 'was offensive to Emory's community standards' as it might result in academic dishonesty and cheating."
The lottery winner is suing an ex-girlfriend based on a non-disclosure agreement aimed at concealing his identity. (The motion to unseal, at this point, is aimed at just unsealing various sealed documents in the case, not at disclosing the parties' names.)
When may plaintiffs in highly politically controversial cases sue pseudonymously, in order to avoid public hostility?
The decision departs from what most courts have done in such Title IX cases—but tracks what most courts do in the many other cases where disclosing a plaintiff’s name might damage the plaintiff’s reputation and professional prospects.
A couple of circuit court decisions noted that the intervenors had to have a concrete plan to write about the records; the court here makes clear that such a plan indeed suffices for standing.
"Dr. Morrison brought this lawsuit. He chose to challenge the accuracy of these statements in a public courtroom. If disclosing the allegedly-defamatory statements invades his privacy or causes him injury, it is solely the result of his own actions and decisions."
based on state sealing law. The lawsuit is against a current Vermont legislator, and alleges the defendant had aided and abetted the sexual assault of the then-16-to-17-year-old plaintiff in 1968-70.
(as well as other allegations).
The cases on the subject are sharply split, reflecting how ill-defined the law of pseudonymous litigation is.
The lottery winner is suing an ex-girlfriend based on a non-disclosure agreement aimed at concealing his identity. (The intervention, at this point, is aimed at just unsealing various sealed documents in the case, not at disclosing the parties' names.)
The Fifth Circuit leaves room for possible retroactive pseudonymization of the case, however, though it doesn't decide for certain whether such retroactive pseudonymization is proper.
The decision allows such pseudonymity when the defendant has already been found (by default judgment) to have committed the assault, but Judge Wilkinson's concurrence argues that, absent this unusual factor, one-sided pseudonymity should be frowned on.
at least under Washington law; the litigants had unsuccessfully sued to challenge disclosure of their sex offender records until the Washington Public Records Act.
"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.
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