Seventh Circuit Refuses to Allow Pseudonymous Appeal in Vaccination Mandate Religious Exemption Case

From yesterday's order:

Anonymous litigation is generally disfavored, and the plaintiffs have not justified anonymity in this appeal. See OPER. P. 10(a); Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2004).

The underlying case is Doe 1 v. Northshore Univ. Healthsystem, which I blogged about earlier this month. For more on the general rules of pseudonymity in litigation, see here.

Comments

[Martinned]

I generally favour pseudonymous litigation as a matter of right, but this one is definitely somewhat out there...

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why?

I mean, I think the current standard in the U.S. is pretty much the correct one, but if you do think most plaintiffs should be able to proceed anonymously, what makes this guy special?

[Martinned]

I assume you meant to reply to me.

1. I didn't say that this guy was special. If the rule is that people should be able to litigate pseudonymously if they wish, unless, say, they're a public figure, this guy would definitely qualify.

2. My point was simply that the policy arguments in favour of pseudonymity, i.e. not requiring people to disclose private information as a condition of being able to litigate, and not having the litigation frustrate the thing they're trying to achieve by litigating, don't really seem to apply here. As far as I can tell, these plaintiffs are trying to litigate a matter of public interest that doesn't really hinge on any facts that are specific to them.

[m4019597]

The judge is an asshole and wrong.

Courts cannot ignore the real world danger of bringing litigation in one’s name against a more powerful adversary.

Whether it’s a boss or a criminal who victimized you, people should have a right to be pseudonymous in lawsuits.

[David Nieporent]

Courts aren't ignoring the imaginary real world danger of bringing litigation in one's name against a more powerful adversary.