-8-
anonymous litigation to proceed. Qualls v. Rumsfeld, 228 F.R.D.
8, 10 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and
Doe v. Sullivan, 938 F.2d 1370, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).
The decision whether to allow parties to proceed anonymously
is in the discretion of the trial court. James v. Jacobson,
supra at 238. A party may generally proceed anonymously when the
trial court reasonably determines that the need for anonymity
outweighs the prejudice to the opposing party and the general
presumption that the parties’ identities are public information.
See Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., supra at 1068.
Some factors to be considered in deciding whether a party may
proceed anonymously include whether the party challenges
governmental activity, whether the party is required to disclose
information of the utmost intimacy, and whether the party is
compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal
conduct. Doe v. Stegall, supra at 185.
Petitioner has a unique need for anonymity in this case.
Petitioner fears that physical harm may come to petitioner or
petitioner’s family and their lives placed in jeopardy if
petitioner’s identity or financial circumstances were made public
in this case. We weigh this risk of physical harm against the
risk of prejudice to respondent and the public interest in
knowing the parties’ identities. See Does I Thru XXIII v.
Advanced Textile Corp., supra at 1068. We hold that petitioner
may preserve anonymity in the special circumstances of this
proceeding because petitioner’s need for anonymity outweighs
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011