UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUCKINGHAM BROWN & NICHOLS SCHOOL, et al.,
Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR IMPOUNDMENT AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
On April 9, 2025, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under a pseudonym, citing the “strong presumption against the use of pseudonyms in civil litigation.” (ECF 8 at 1). In other words, litigants must disclose their identities, other than in “exceptional cases.” Doe v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 46 F.4th 61, 71 (1st Cir. 2022). Courts are public forums, lawsuits are public proceedings, and they involve public accusations against named defendants. Under ordinary circumstances, then, it is only fair to the public and to defendants that plaintiffs disclose their identities. See id.
Plaintiffs have now moved to impound all case filings that reveal their identities, or, in the alternative, for a protective order requiring the redaction of their names and limiting nonparty access to redacted documents. (ECF 9). This is, in substance, a renewed motion to proceed under a pseudonym. For the reasons articulated in the Court’s previous order, the motion will be denied.
The Court will permit plaintiffs to file certain documents under provisional seal on a 2 document-by-document basis, but with the understanding that they may be unsealed at a later point, such as any trial of this matter. Plaintiffs may refer to their minor children using initials. They may also redact from their public filings any sensitive personal information such as dates of birth, addresses, and specific private health information. Unredacted copies of these documents must also be filed, although they may be filed under seal.
Plaintiffs’ motion for impoundment and for a protective order is therefore DENIED. Plaintiffs are directed to file a notice of their legal names and addresses today consistent with the Court’s prior order. So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: April 23, 2025 Chief Judge, United States District Court 3