The prisoner had argued that other inmates were accessing the case documents, and as a result were urging other inmates to beat, rape, and kill the prisoner, apparently because of information in the court file related to the crime of which the prisoner had been convicted.
This further adds to the split among Manhattan federal judges as to pseudonymity in the various Doe v. Combs cases.
"To permit Defendant to claim that he had instructed his lawyers to comply with all court orders including those requiring electronic production and that it was Prior Counsel who were responsible for the misdeeds that have plagued this case, while sitting on declarations in the court file that belie those claims, would permit him to make a 'mockery' of the court and its proceedings. "
"The manner in which Meta moderates content from an adult platform competing with OnlyFans versus content that originates from OnlyFans is directly at issue. Therefore, Meta's general policies which articulate the extent to which sexual content is permitted on any of Meta's social media platforms are also relevant."
"[T]he presence of masked protesters in the room, who defied the authority of Haverford administrators and had to be removed by campus security, with a chanting group of protestors outside, would reasonably be viewed as a form of intimidation going far beyond the 'normal' chaos of a confrontational campus protest."
"[C]ourts should not permit parties to proceed pseudonymously just to protect the parties' professional or economic life."
"Plaintiff's allegations are emotionally and politically charged, and ... Plaintiff is a member of certain groups subject to discrimination. That, however, is true of a plethora of cases in the federal courts and has generally not been understood to authorize anonymous pleading."
The court stresses, though, that "The complaint includes no claims brought solely on behalf of Plaintiff Doe," and "Based on the description of the claims, including when and where the alleged vandalism took place and photographs of the vandalism, it appears defendants could adequately defend themselves against the claims without knowing Plaintiff Doe's identity."
So holds the Eleventh Circuit, upholding the district court's decision—but the court's standard of review suggests that the exact oppose district court decision might have been upheld, too.
Plaintiff had alleged that being publicly identified would put him at risk of physical harm.
So the District Court in Sen. Mastriano's case just held.
"While this case involves a statutory conferral of anonymity, the legislature is not exempt from the Constitution."
The plaintiff says she "thought the whole time it was going to be confidential"—but court cases are public.
A reminder to libel plaintiffs (and other plaintiffs).
Sen. Mastriano (who is running for reelection to the state senate, and who ran in 2022 for Governor) is suing for, among other things, libel—but trying to keep the allegedly libelous material under seal.
Sen. Mastriano (who is running for reelection to the state senate, and who ran in 2022 for Governor) is suing for, among other things, libel—but trying to keep the allegedly libelous material under seal.
"Professor Volokh may not ... publicly disclose Plaintiff's name or personal identifying information in any future writings, speeches, or other public discourse."
The defendant had alleged that he, his family, and his lawyer had been threatened by the public, but the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the trial court wasn't given adequate evidence to justify sealing.
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
