Что изменилось
United States v. Approximately 1,210,734.00 Usdt · редакция 1 → 2 · зафиксировано 2026-09-17 03:19 · +1 −1 строк
… 30 строк без изменений …
## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
The Federal Rules create a strong “presumption against pseudonymous litigation.” Doe v.
Hill, 141 F.4th 291, 293 (D.C. Cir. 2025). That presumption serves to “protect the public’s legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved” in a lawsuit, “including the identities of the parties.” Id. (quoting In re Sealed Case, 971 F.3d 324, 326 (D.C. Cir. 2020)). Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit generally requires “parties to a lawsuit to openly identify themselves.”Id.
Hill, 141 F.4th 291, 293 (D.C. Cir. 2025). That presumption serves to “protect the public’s legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved” in a lawsuit, “including the identities of the parties.” Id. (quoting In re Sealed Case, 971 F.3d 324, 326 (D.C. Cir. 2020)). Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit generally requires “parties to a lawsuit to openly identify themselves.” Id.
… 42 строк без изменений …
(quoting Sealed Case, 971 F.3d at 326). A district court may, however, grant the “rare dispensation of pseudonymous status.” Id. To evaluate when a pseudonym is warranted, courts balance five non-exhaustive factors: (1) whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; (2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party; (3) the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are sought to be protected; (4) whether the action is against a governmental or private party; and (5) the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously. Sealed Case, 971 F.3d at 326.
United States District Judge