From Doe v. Fed. Republic of Germany, decided today by Chief Judge James Boasberg (D.D.C.):
Plaintiff claims to be the source of the Panama Papers, a set of leaked documents that revealed a global network of tax evasion and offshore holdings. He is proceeding pro se in this breach-of-contract lawsuit against Germany and its federal criminal police agency to recover money that they allegedly owe him as part of Germany's agreement to purchase the Panama Papers from him. See Panama Papers: Germany 'Pays Millions' for Leaked Data, BBC News (July 5, 2017) …. He requests pseudonymity because he claims that he faces a "real and imminent" threat to his safety from global actors committed to identifying and harming him in retribution for his production of the Panama Papers. As part of his request, Plaintiff also asks to seal his identity from the Court. But see LCvR 5.1(c)(1) (requiring that parties file "name[s] and full residence address[es]" and pro se parties also file telephone number).
Because Plaintiff has made the detailed showing required to overcome the presumption in favor of public disclosure, the Court will grant his request to proceed under a pseudonym in his public filings. It will, however, deny his unusual request to seal his identity from the Court. The Court uses male pronouns throughout this Opinion for convenience but does not thereby suggest anything about Plaintiff's sex….
Generally, a complaint must identify the plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); LCVR 5.1(c)(1) . That requirement reflects the "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." A party moving to proceed pseudonymously thus "bears the weighty burden of both demonstrating a concrete need for such secrecy, and identifying the consequences that would likely befall it if forced to proceed in its own name." …
The first factor supports granting the Motion. Plaintiff seeks pseudonymity not "merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation," but … argues that he "is not concerned about [his] reputation or future career prospects so much as [his] safety." The Court agrees…. Plaintiff's identity has not been publicly disclosed and is itself sensitive in light of the risks to which its revelation could expose him. See Juliette Garside & Philip Oltermann, Panama Papers Whistleblower Speakers Out: 'Politicians Must Act — Now', The Guardian (July 22, 2022) ("The whistleblower said they could not take the risk of revealing their identity because they believed they were a target of the Russian government."); Chang v. Republic of S. Sudan, 548 F. Supp. 3d 34, 38 (D.D.C. 2021) (recognizing risk of retaliation from foreign government as relevant to [whether a plaintiff may proceed pseudonymously])….
