Court Lets Plaintiff Suing Over "Pro-Hamas Demonstrations at Northwestern" Proceed Pseudonymously
Plaintiff had alleged that being publicly identified would put him at risk of physical harm.
Plaintiff had alleged that being publicly identified would put him at risk of physical harm.
So the District Court in Sen. Mastriano's case just held.
"While this case involves a statutory conferral of anonymity, the legislature is not exempt from the Constitution."
The plaintiff says she "thought the whole time it was going to be confidential"—but court cases are public.
A reminder to libel plaintiffs (and other plaintiffs).
Sen. Mastriano (who is running for reelection to the state senate, and who ran in 2022 for Governor) is suing for, among other things, libel—but trying to keep the allegedly libelous material under seal.
Sen. Mastriano (who is running for reelection to the state senate, and who ran in 2022 for Governor) is suing for, among other things, libel—but trying to keep the allegedly libelous material under seal.
"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.)
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.