Summary
This D.C. Circuit opinion addresses an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to proceed under a pseudonym in a lawsuit challenging the FDIC’s statutory ban on hiring individuals with felony convictions. Applying a five-factor balancing test, the court held that the plaintiff’s privacy interest in his sealed criminal record does not outweigh the strong public presumption of open judicial proceedings, particularly given the significant public interest in transparency surrounding a constitutional challenge to a federal employment statute. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances warranting anonymity.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in denying John Doe's motion to proceed under a pseudonym.
Holdings
- The appellate court affirms the district court's denial; the presumption of openness and the weighing of the five‑factor test do not favor pseudonymity in this case.
Key quotations
“Because federal court proceedings are presumptively open and transparent, proceeding under a pseudonym is rarely granted.” (at 1)
Factual background
Dr. John Doe, a former Ohio felon whose convictions were later pardoned and sealed, applied for a position with the FDIC. The FDIC denied his application under 12 U.S.C. §1822(f)(4)(E)(i). Doe filed suit alleging constitutional violations and moved to proceed under a pseudonym to protect his privacy. The district court denied the motion after weighing the five‑factor test.
Procedural history
John Doe sued the FDIC challenging a statutory hiring bar and simultaneously moved to proceed under a pseudonym. The district court denied the motion after applying the five‑factor test from Sealed Case I and II and affirmed the denial. Doe appealed.