Doe v. Mayorkas
- John Tunheim
- 0:22-cv-03142
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Doe v. Mayorkas, Judge Foster granted John Doe’s motion to seal the complaint and proceed under a pseudonym because disclosure could threaten his family’s safety.
John Doe and his family members receive protection from public disclosure of Doe’s identity and the sealed complaint. The defendants may access the unredacted complaint and may seek reconsideration within 14 days. The public cannot access the sealed complaint or Doe’s identity through the public filing.
What happened
In Doe v. Mayorkas, John Doe asked to keep his complaint sealed and to use a pseudonym. He said the complaint contained sensitive information and that revealing his identity could seriously harm him and his family.
The court found good cause to seal the complaint because Doe’s need for confidentiality outweighed the public’s interest in access. It also found that Doe was challenging government activity and that publicly revealing his name could threaten the lives and safety of Doe and his family. The defendants could see Doe’s identity in the unredacted complaint, so the court found they would not be prejudiced.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the motion, directed the clerk to keep the original complaint sealed, and allowed Doe to proceed under a pseudonym. The defendants may ask the court to reconsider within 14 days if they object.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Mayorkas · No. 0:22-cv-03142
- John Tunheim
- May 19, 2023
Background
John Doe filed a complaint under seal and a public redacted version. He also moved to file the complaint under a pseudonym and keep it sealed. The defendants entered an appearance but did not respond to the motion. The court had stayed the case for 90 days so the parties could pursue an administrative resolution, but it addressed the pending motion.
Sealing the Complaint
The court recognized a common-law right of public access to judicial records, but explained that this right is not absolute. Courts balance public access against legitimate confidentiality interests. The court found good cause to seal Doe’s complaint because it contained confidential and sensitive information about Doe and nonparties, and because disclosure could threaten the lives and safety of Doe and Doe’s family members. The court concluded that Doe’s confidentiality interest outweighed the public-access interest.
Proceeding Under a Pseudonym
The court explained that a plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym when, among other circumstances, the plaintiff challenges government activity or disclosure would reveal highly intimate information. The court found that Doe was challenging government activity and that public disclosure of Doe’s name could be life-threatening to Doe and Doe’s family members. It also found that the defendants would not be prejudiced because Doe’s identity appeared in the unredacted complaint filed under seal and was accessible to them. The court further determined that the risk from public disclosure outweighed the public interest in requiring Doe to use his name.
Disposition
The court granted Doe’s Motion to File Complaint Under Pseudonym and Seal the Complaint. It directed the clerk to keep the original complaint, ECF No. 1, sealed, and allowed Doe to proceed under a pseudonym. The defendants may file a motion to reconsider within 14 days of the order if they object.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.