From Magistrate Judge Alice Senechal's decision in N.D. Human Rights Coalition v. Patriot Front, which was handed down under seal early this year and was then released (with modest redactions) in response to my motion to unseal (I'm writing about this now to accompany my post on the recent decision denying the motion to dismiss in the case):
Plaintiffs move, ex parte, for leave for "Plaintiff Doe" to proceed under a pseudonym in order to protect [redacted] physical safety and personal privacy.
The North Dakota Human Rights Coalition, Immigrant Development Center, and Plaintiff Doe filed a complaint on September 1, 2023, against the group Patriot Front, Thomas Rousseau, Trevor Valescu, and ten John Does. Plaintiffs allege multiple claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 and 1981, and claims of conversion, trespass, trespass to chattel, and civil conspiracy. According to the complaint, on September 3 and September 5, 2022, persons affiliated with Patriot Front trespassed onto and vandalized the International Market Plaza in Fargo, North Dakota. The complaint describes the International Market Plaza as a large indoor community space filled with African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American immigrant-owned shops, restaurants, and grocery stores.
According to photos included in the complaint, the front of the market and multiple murals were defaced with spray-painted Patriot Front links in September of 2022….
Historically, courts have allowed the use of pseudonyms if identification of a party would pose a risk of retaliatory harm to them. Specific past incidents of violence or vandalism have been found to show a risk of retaliatory harm. Fear of retaliatory action can be sufficient to satisfy this factor. This factor also takes into consideration innocent non-parties' risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm.
