ACLU Lawsuit - Motion to File - American Foreign Service Association

Case 8:12-cv-02297-AW Document 2 Filed 08/02/12 Page 2 of 4
from Internet publication. Three of the Plaintiffs, especially concerned with keeping their
identities private, have filed using the name “Jane Doe.”
Should Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction be denied, or granted and reversed
on appeal, or should final judgment in this case be for the Defendants, the presence of Plaintiffs’
home addresses in the caption of this case would make even easier and more likely some of the
very harms — identity theft and financial fraud — that they are filing this lawsuit to try to
prevent. It would be ironic, and unjustified, to require them to take those risks as a condition of
seeking judicial relief.
This Court recognizes the need to protect the privacy interests of litigants. For example,
the Court’s Privacy Policy for Civil Cases provides that, “Social Security numbers, financial
account numbers, dates of birth and names of minor children not parties to a case are personal
identifiers which unless otherwise ordered by the court should not appear in public court
documents [with certain exceptions] regardless of whether the documents are filed electronically
or in paper format.” Like that information, public disclosure of a home address can result in a
serious invasion of privacy.
The same general principles as filing using pseudonyms should apply here. In Doe v.
Von Eschenbach, 2007 WL 1848013 (D.D.C. June 27, 2007) (No. 06-2131 (RMC)), the D.C.
Circuit explained that the use of pseudonyms “has been permitted where the issues are ‘matters
of a sensitive and highly personal nature . . . .’” Id. at *1 (quoting Southern Methodist Univ.
Ass’n of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 712–13 (5th Cir. 1979)). The
Court “balance[s] the presumption of openness with [the] plaintiff’s privacy rights.” Id., at *2.
In the circumstances of this case, that balance weighs in favor of keeping Plaintiffs’ home
address off the public record.
2