Case Activity (3332)

1. Utility | Filed: July 14, 2026 | Entered: July 14, 2026 MILLER v. HEGSETH

   Civil Rights: Jobs | District Of Columbia

   Set/Reset Deadlines

   Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's redacted complaint due by 7/17/2026. (zcll)

2. Order | Filed: July 14, 2026 | Entered: July 14, 2026 MILLER v. HEGSETH

   Civil Rights: Jobs | District Of Columbia

   Order on Motion for Leave to File

   MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym and to File Unredacted Complaint Under Seal. "[P]arties who seek to proceed pseudonymously seek a 'rare dispensation' from the court. The moving party 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. Speculative assertions of harm will not suffice." In re Sealed Case, 971 F.3d 324, 326 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). A district court "ought to begin" the pseudonymity inquiry by looking to five non-exhaustive factors: (1) "whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature"; (2) "whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm"; (3) "the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are sought to be protected"; (4) "whether the action is against a governmental or private party"; and (5) "the risk of unfairness to the opposing party." Id. at 326-27 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff states that proceeding pseudonymously is needed because she is a former employee of an Intelligence Agency and that, because she suffers from so-called "Havana Syndrome," her "identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical and mental harm by [ ] foreign adversaries, or others who may have acted to cause harm to our nations Intelligence Community." Pl.'s Mot. at 1-2. As to the first factor, Plaintiff's claim of harm is entirely speculative. She has not made a "colorable showing of injury to a privacy interest" by offering something "concrete to establish that revealing [her] identity would cause" some "cognizable harm." In re Sealed Case I, 971 F.3d at 327. Regarding the second and third factors, the claimed risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm is conclusory, and she has not identified any sensitivity associated with her age. See id. at 326, 328. The fourth factor weighs against Plaintiff, as her action is against the government. See id. at 329 ("there is a heightened public interest when an individual or entity files a suit against the government"). Finally, the last factor, unfairness to the opposing party, arguably supports Plaintiff, as Defendant knows her identity. "But that alone does not justify pseudonymity." Doe v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., No. 24-5195, 2026 WL 1661910, at *3 (D.C. Cir. June 9, 2026). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied. The court, however, sua sponte orders the Clerk of Court to seal Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1 , to remove her home address from the public docket. See LCvR 5.1(c). Plaintiff shall re-file her complaint with her home address redacted by July 17, 2026. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 7/14/2026. (lcapm3)

3. 3330 additional result(s)