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.
Another example of how badly split courts are on pseudonymity questions.
If so, should that be because his "stellar reputation is a critical component to ensuring the public's trust for him to operate on their children for complex procedures"?
but the minors involved (including the accused students) will be pseudonymized.
"[I]f the purported falsity of the complaint's allegations were sufficient to seal an entire case, then the law would recognize a presumption to seal instead of a presumption of openness."
Four courts have recently said yes, in cases brought by conservative Muslims and Christians.
"Given the charged atmosphere concerning vaccinations and vaccine mandates, and for the other reasons discussed above, the Court is persuaded that this is the rare case where a party should be permitted to proceed pseudonymously."
“UNOS’s reasoning boils down to a desire to keep indiscreet communications out of the public eye, which is not enough to satisfy our standard for good cause.”
"Plaintiff is an adult who chose to enter the political arena and now to file this litigation, asserting claims against Defendant as a result of Defendant's alleged statements and activities concerning Plaintiff and Plaintiff's political campaign."
Be concrete and specific enough to pass the high bar needed to defeat the presumption of open access—and get it right the first time.
The unusually named case is Doe v. Anonymous #1, now pending in Brooklyn state trial court.
Supportive letters submitted by the defendant at sentencing can’t remain secret.
"regardless whether the motion [to seal] is opposed or unopposed."
“Evidence about Penn’s treatment of other tenure candidates will be at the heart of the parties’ arguments.”
An interesting prior restraint case now being litigated in the Hawaii Supreme Court.
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
Notifications