LA. etal, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM BARR et al., Defendants. FILED AUG 21 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District and FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy Courts Case: 1:19-cv—02530 Assigned To : Kelly, Timothy J. Assign. Date : 8/21/2019 Description: GEN CIV (E-DECk) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs in this action are eight individuals and one organization seeking to challenge the interim final rule “Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications,” 84 Fed. Reg. 33,829, issued on July 16, 2019, by the Attorney General and the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. The individual plaintiffs, each an asylum applicant or the minor child of an applicant currently in the United States, seek leave to proceed using pseudonyms and to file their proposed complaint accordingly. They further seek leave to file under seal the accompanying declarations in support of their motion for leave to proceed pseudonymously. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant it. I, Background The individual plaintiffs are eight persons from five different countries seeking asylum in the United States. They are comprised of five adults and three minors, all of whom entered the United States at the southern border on or after July 16, 2019. Each individual adult plaintiff and the one unaccompanied minor plaintiff, in an accompanying declaration filed under seal, represents that he or she is fleeing threats of severe violence or death, and they all state that they would fear for their own safety and that of their families if their names were disclosed as a result of their participation in this lawsuit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek leave of Court for the individual plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously. And they further request that the individual plaintiffs’ declarations describing in more detail the grounds for their request remain under seal. As already noted, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. Il. Legal Standard Generally, a complaint must state the names of the parties and the address of the plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); LCvR 5.1(c)(1); LCvR 11.1. The public’s interest “in knowing the names of... litigants” is critical because “disclosing the parties’ identities furthers openness of Judicial proceedings.” Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 273 (4th Cir. 2014); see also Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” (footnotes omitted)). The Federal Rules thus promote a “presumption in favor of disclosure [of litigants’ identities], which stems from the ‘general public interest in the openness of governmental processes,’ and, more specifically, from the tradition of open judicial proceedings.” In re Sealed Case, No. 17-1212, 2019 WL 3367999, at *3 (D.C. Cir. July 26, 2019) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Wash. Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 89 F.3d 897, 899 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). ~ Nevertheless, courts have, in special circumstances, permitted a party to “proceed anonymously” when a court determines the need for “the plaintiff's anonymity” outweighs ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals