Doe v. Mayorkas

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota June 14, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

John Doe, Case. No. 22-cv-3142 (JRT/DJF)

Plaintiff,
v.

Alejandro Mayorkas, Antony J. Blinken, and ORDER
Ur Jaddou,

Defendants.

On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Sealed Amended Complaint (ECF No. 46), along with
a public redacted copy of the document (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a Motion to
File Amended Complaint Under Pseudonym and Seal the Amended Complaint (“Motion”) (ECF
No. 48). The Court previously granted a similar motion regarding Plaintiff’s original complaint
(ECF Nos. 3, 27.) The same analysis applies here.
Plaintiff asks the Court to seal Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint because it contains
confidential and sensitive information about Plaintiff and individuals who are not parties to this
action, and disclosure of such information could threaten the lives and safety of Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s family members. (ECF No. 48 at 1-2.) Plaintiff similarly asks to proceed
pseudonymously because disclosing Plaintiff’s identity could cause Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family
members significant harm. (Id. at 2-3.) The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s Motion.
“There is a common-law right of access to judicial records.” IDT Corp. v. eBay,

709 F.3d 1220

, 1222–23 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing  Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.,

435 U.S. 589, 597

 
(1978)).  Notwithstanding, the right of access is not absolute and requires the court to balance the 
competing interests of public access against the legitimate interests of maintaining confidentiality 
of the information sought to be sealed.  Id. at 1123.  The Court finds good cause to seal Plaintiff’s 
Amended Complaint because Plaintiff’s interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs any 
interest in public access.                                                
    Further,  “[t]hough  neither  the  Supreme  Court  nor  the  Eighth  Circuit  have  directly 
addressed pseudonymous litigation, both courts have allowed parties to use pseudonyms.”  Doe v. 

Innovate Fin., Inc, Civ. No. 21-1754 (JRT/TNL),

2022 WL 673582

, at *3 (D. Minn. Mar. 7, 2022). 
Specifically,  “[a]  plaintiff  may  proceed  under  a  pseudonym  if  (1)  they  are  challenging  a 
governmental activity; (2) prosecution of the suit would compel plaintiff to disclose information 
of the utmost intimacy; or (3) plaintiff would be compelled to admit their intention to engage in 
illegal conduct and risk prosecution.”

Id.

  The Court may also consider whether: (1) the litigation 
involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal matter; (2) identification presents other 
harms and the likely severity of those harms, including whether the injury being litigated against 
would be incurred as a result of disclosure; (3) the defendant is prejudiced; (4) the plaintiff’s 
identity has thus far been kept confidential; (5) the public’s interest in the litigation is furthered by 
requiring the plaintiff to disclose their identity; and (6) there are alternative mechanisms for 

protecting plaintiff’s confidentiality.

Id.

                              
    Here, Plaintiff is challenging governmental activity, and public disclosure of Plaintiff’s 
name could be life threatening to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family members.  Further, Defendants 
will not suffer prejudice if Plaintiff is permitted to proceed with a pseudonym because Plaintiff’s 
name is contained in the unredacted version of the Complaint that has been filed under seal and is 
accessible to Defendants.  See Doe v. Tsai, Civ. No. 08-1198 (DWF/AJB),

2008 WL 11462908

, 
at *4  (D.  Minn.  July  23,  2008)  (granting  motion  to  proceed  with  pseudonyms  and  noting 
“Defendants know the identities of all their accusers, and shielding the child-Plaintiffs’ identities 
from the public record will not prejudice their case.”).  Finally, the serious risk to Plaintiff and 
Plaintiff’s family members from publicly disclosing their names outweighs any public interest.  
The Court therefore grants Plaintiff’s request to proceed under a pseudonym.  For these reasons, 
the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion.  To the extent Defendants object, they may file a motion to 
reconsider within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

ORDER

    Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                   
    1.   Plaintiff’s Motion to File Complaint Under Pseudonym and Seal the Complaint  
(ECF No. [48]) is GRANTED.                                                
    2.   The Court directs the Clerk to keep ECF No. [46] sealed;        
    3.   Plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym; and                    
    4.   Defendants may file a motion to reconsider within fourteen (14) days of the date 
         of this Order if they object.                                   


Dated: June 14, 2024     s/ Dulce J. Foster                              
                         DULCE J. FOSTER                                 
                         United States Magistrate Judge