From Chief Judge James Boasberg (D.D.C.) yesterday in Doe v. Rollins:
Plaintiffs … worked at the Department of Agriculture in jobs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion…. On the first day of his new Administration, Trump issued an executive order that denounced federal DEI programs as "shameful discrimination," charged them with "immense public waste," and directed federal agencies to end them. Days later, Plaintiffs were placed on administrative leave. The Office of Personnel Management then issued guidance that, Plaintiffs allege, shows that they would soon be fired and would be allowed to apply for reassignment only to other DEI-focused jobs—which, thanks to the recent Executive Order, no longer existed.
Plaintiffs are challenging their placement on leave and OPM's guidance as violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the First and Fifth Amendments. And they have moved to bring that challenge under pseudonyms. For the reasons below, the Court will deny their Motion to proceed pseudonymously….
Generally, a complaint must identify the plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); [D.D.C. Local Civil Rule] 5.1(c)(1), 11.1. 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." As a result, the court must "'balance the litigant's legitimate interest in anonymity against countervailing interests in full disclosure'" … Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that their privacy interests outweigh the public's presumptive and substantial interest in learning their identities.
Start with whether this case concerns "a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature." Plaintiffs argue that it does because they fear that being outed as having worked on DEI programs will damage their professional prospects.
