No Pseudonymity for Plaintiff in Action Claiming Florida Discriminates Based on Race in Funding Universities
Plaintiff "has alleged nothing suggesting he has any greater basis to fear retaliation than the plaintiffs in most discrimination cases."
Plaintiff "has alleged nothing suggesting he has any greater basis to fear retaliation than the plaintiffs in most discrimination cases."
to continue with his appeal, holds the Second Circuit; because he didn't do so, the appeal was dismissed.
"Meanwhile, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, everyone will still tell the public what it sounded like and what it means."
The court cites the relatives' privacy interests, and in particular the risk of "harassment by the adults alleged to have committed sexual crimes against the decedent" (and who aren't named as defendants in the case).
A federal judge suggested that plaintiffs can sue as John Does only to the extent that identifying them would also identify nonparties who want to remain anonymous (such as the students who accused the plaintiffs of sexual misconduct).
[UPDATE: I've added comments from plaintiff's lawyer.]
A court may impose restrictions on redistribution of material obtained through court-ordered discovery (as opposed to obtained through other means)—though if the depositions are quoted in court filings or played in court, the material used would "become part of the public record, creating a presumption of public access."
Appellate briefs need to be treated as public documents, and (I argued) shouldn't be "provisionally" sealed for months or years without findings that such sealing (or, more often, redaction) is genuinely necessary.
"Plaintiff has sought to avail herself of the protections of anonymity (without prior Court order), all the while single-handedly precluding the Named Defendant from the ability to avail himself of similar protections."
Should an appellate court provisionally seal a brief until the case is heard on the merits? Or should it try to make a redacted version promptly available?
I'm glad to do such things, and to get students involved to give them practical experience.
The search warrant and some related materials have been unsealed—but the affidavit is where the details on the justifications for the search would be, and the government has argued this has to remain secret, at least for now.
The search warrant and some related materials have been unsealed—but the affidavit is where the details on the justifications for the search would be, and the government says this has to remain secret, at least for now.
"[H]arm to one's reputation or injury to one's standing in the community does not warrant a deviation from the strong presumption of public access[.]"
"[W]e apply the strongest presumption of public access to the Memorandum Opinion issued by this Court ..., which, as an official decision of the Court, is considered the 'quintessential business of the public's institutions,' and is 'core to the transparency of the court's decisionmaking process.''"
"There is no question that inaccurate statements were made by the government as part of these proceedings—to both Judge Schroeder and the undersigned"—but it appears that the details of this alleged misconduct remain sealed.
The split in the cases grows.
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