Loading…
Opinion
971 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 7, 2020
Full text
In re: Sealed Case
D. Massachusetts · Dec 11, 2025
District of Columbia · Dec 9, 2025
D.C. Circuit · Dec 4, 2025
District of Columbia · Oct 10, 2025
Parentheticals
noting that “[a]s many courts have recognized, there is a heighted public interest when an individual . . . files a suit against the government”
noting that this “balancing test is necessarily flexible and fact driven”
observing that the public interest is “intensified” in such circumstances
considering each of the five factors when evaluating non- individual’s request for pseudonymity
listing as examples “sexual activities,” “medical concerns,” or “identity of abused minors”
noting courts “generally require parties to a lawsuit to openly identify themselves to protect the public’s legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identities of the parties.” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted
“Plaintiff anticipates that a public second lawsuit will undoubtedly harm future employment opportunities both within and outside the Department”
“That public interest is intensified when, as here, the party asking to proceed anonymously seeks to alter the operation of public law both as applied to it and, by virtue of the legal arguments presented, to other parties going forward.”
“That public interest is intensified when, as here, the party asking to proceed anonymously seeks to alter the operation of public law both as applied to it and, by virtue of the legal arguments presented, to other parties going forward.”
“The asserted injuries are purely economic, and speculative at that.”
“sexual activities” are “intimate issues” that this factor “commonly involves”
issue of bodily autonomy considered sensitive and highly personal information
