DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd
- Barbara Moses
- 1:17-cv-04576
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Judge Moses denied Jane Doe’s motion without prejudice because its requested relief and grounds were unclear or insufficient.
Jane Doe and her request to participate in the case anonymously and under seal.
What happened
In DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Jane Doe asked for permission to use that name and submit a matter under seal. Her papers did not clearly explain what relief she wanted or why anonymity and sealing were justified.
The court denied her motion without prejudice, allowing her to renew it. The court explained what she would need to file if she wanted to join the case, proceed anonymously, or submit materials under seal.
Judge Moses also identified court staff and a legal clinic that may assist people without lawyers, while noting that court staff cannot provide legal advice.
The detailed version
- DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd · No. 1:17-cv-04576
- Barbara Moses
- Aug. 25, 2022
Background
On August 24, 2022, the court’s Pro Se Office received two documents signed by “Jane Doe.” In a notice of motion, Jane Doe requested permission to file under that name and under seal, and her declaration said there were sufficient reasons for her to be considered a party and to submit materials as Jane Doe.
Court’s Analysis
The court found the papers ambiguous and brief. It was uncertain what relief Jane Doe sought if she were allowed to proceed anonymously and under seal. The court also found that she had not provided sufficient grounds for anonymous or sealed relief.
The court explained that, if Jane Doe wanted to intervene as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, she would need to file a motion expressly seeking intervention, explain the basis for intervention, and attach a pleading stating the claims or defenses for which she sought to intervene. If she wanted to proceed anonymously, she would need to file a motion explaining the grounds supporting anonymity. If she wanted to file some or all of an intervention or anonymity motion under seal, she would need to file a public motion seeking permission to do so and explaining why sealing was justified.
Disposition
The court denied Jane Doe’s motion, docket entry 269, without prejudice to renewal. The order did not decide whether she could intervene, proceed anonymously, or file materials under seal. It also advised that the Pro Se Intake Unit may help with court procedures but cannot provide legal advice, and identified a separate free legal clinic for people without lawyers in federal civil cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.