Litigating defamation claims "in secrecy to avoid any potential embarrassment to" their subjects "directly contradicts the presumptive right of public access to pleadings and judicial proceedings."
I lost my motion opposing pseudonymity in the District of New Hampshire, though I'm appealing to the First Circuit.
"[I]n this internet age, where jurors' names can trigger lightning-fast access to a wealth of biographical information, including addresses, any slightly positive role in divulging jurors' names to the public is outweighed by the risk to jury integrity."
The court's view appears to be that, the more public interest in a case, the less the public is entitled to know.
"Plaintiff's behavior may make it more difficult for other courts (and the public) to find his litigation history, which could act to conceal future vexatious litigation or behavior."
Court redacts the name from the court-hosted official record, but refuses to order private sites to remove it.
The allegations had been filed in an appendix to a petition the judge filed in the state supreme court, challenging her suspension by the state Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission; but the court concludes they are nonetheless not records open to the public.
An interesting new Pennsylvania administrative decision on the subject.
UPDATE: As predicted, PETA has moved to intervene. FURTHER UPDATE: The court has indeed allowed PETA to intervene.
even though the video includes a brief appearance by a minor (a friend of plaintiff's).
This may be especially helpful in cases involving sealing or pseudonymity, where the parties agree with each other but the public interest ought to be represented.
The judge also says the plaintiff's request for pseudonymity was inadequately supported.
“Plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits, several of which involve circumstances similar to this case. In some she has been permitted to proceed anonymously; in others, she has not. Regardless, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff is a ‘vexatious litigant.’ This goes directly to Plaintiff’s credibility, and Defendant should not be hampered in pursuing that defense.”
"There is no veterinarian privilege, no animal equivalent of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and no case law suggesting that humans and animals are entitled to the same level of privacy."
in part because he is a citizen of Kuwait, “where ‘sexual activity outside of marriage goes against religious and cultural values’ and ‘sexual relations outside of marriage are illegal"?
Or, to be precise, her lawyers must do so.
Yes, says a federal court, partly because this particular challenge (to a policy “which only allowed religious exemptions for those individuals who are members of organized religions whose teachings entirely forbid vaccinations”) appears to be purely legal in nature.
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
