Doe v. International Motors LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
John Doe,
Plaintiff,
v.
International Motors LLC,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-00459-TUC-JGZ
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff John Doe’s Motion to Seal Case and Proceed
Under Pseudonym. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff has also lodged the following documents on the
docket: a Complaint (Doc. 2), a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Plaintiff’s Application (Doc. 3), an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 4), and a Motion to Allow Electronic Filing by a Party
Appearing Without an Attorney (Doc. 5). For the following reasons, the Court will grant
in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Case and Proceed Under Pseudonym.
I. Background
Plaintiff John Doe, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Defendant
International Motors, LLC, formerly known as Navistar, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that the
action arises from a corporate fraud and transnational racketeering scheme involving real
property that he claims to have owned continuously since December 29, 1982. (Doc. 1 at
1–2.) Plaintiff further alleges that the underlying conveyance, corporate vetting, and
execution of transaction documents occurred in Arizona.
Case 4:26-cv-00459-JGZ Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff states that the concurrently filed Complaint is intended as a “protective
placeholder skeleton document” and therefore omits identifying names and exhibits
pending a ruling on his request for protective measures. (Doc. 1 at 2.) He represents that
he intends to file a more comprehensive First Amended Complaint after the Court rules on
his requests to proceed under a pseudonym and to seal the case.
Plaintiff alleges that he discovered the fraudulent transaction on October 30, 2024,
and that, on the same day, he and his minor children were subjected to threats of death and
physical injury. (Id.) He further alleges that, as a result, he obtained a restraining order,
fled his residence, and entered an Arizona state protection and safety program. Plaintiff
also states that the Pima County Superior Court previously authorized him to proceed under
a pseudonym and imposed confidentiality protections based on the alleged threats and
resulting displacement.
Plaintiff now asks this Court to permit him to proceed under the pseudonym “John
Doe” and to seal the case from public access or, alternatively, maintain a redacted public
record. (Doc. 1 at 1.)
II. Discussion
A. Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym
Generally, a party proceeding anonymously “runs afoul of the public’s common law
right of access to judicial proceedings, . . . and Rule 10(a)’s command that the title of every
complaint ‘include the names of all the parties.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile
Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). However, when
special circumstances justify secrecy, federal courts may allow parties to proceed under a
pseudonym. Id. (collecting cases). In the Ninth Circuit, the standard is whether “the party’s
need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in
knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. Where a pseudonym is used to shield a party
from retaliation, the district court should evaluate three factors: (1) the severity of the
threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears; and (3) the
anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation. Id.
Case 4:26-cv-00459-JGZ Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Here, Plaintiff alleges that, on October 30, 2024, after discovering the alleged
fraudulent transaction underlying this action, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s minor children were
subjected to threats of death and physical injury. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff further alleges that,
as a result of those threats, Plaintiff obtained a restraining order, fled Plaintiff’s residence,
and entered an Arizona state protection and safety program. (Id.) Plaintiff also states that
the Pima County Superior Court previously authorized him to proceed under a pseudonym
and imposed confidentiality protections. (Id. at 2–3.) In its July 29, 2026 Order, the state
court permitted Plaintiff to proceed publicly as “John Doe” and required the parties to file
unredacted documents under seal and corresponding redacted versions on the public
docket. The state court denied Plaintiff’s request to seal the entire action, finding that less
restrictive alternatives were available to protect his identifying information and the address
of the property at issue. (Doc. 3 at 9–11.)
On this record, Plaintiff’s need for anonymity outweighs any prejudice to Defendant
and the public’s interest in knowing Plaintiff’s identity. The alleged harm—physical injury
or death to Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s minor children—is severe. Plaintiff’s asserted fear is
further supported by his participation in the Arizona Address Confidentiality Program and
by a prior state court order authorizing confidentiality protections. (See Doc. 3 at 9–11.) At
this stage, there is no apparent prejudice to Defendant from allowing Plaintiff to proceed
under a pseudonym, particularly because Plaintiff’s true identity may be disclosed to
Defendant through appropriate confidential means if necessary to defend this action.
Moreover, allowing Plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym will preserve public access to
the proceedings without disclosing his protected identity. See Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d
at 1068–69. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s request to proceed under the
pseudonym “John Doe,” without prejudice to Defendant’s ability to seek modification of
this authorization as the litigation progresses.
B. Motion to Seal
Plaintiff also requests that the Court seal the entirety of this case from public access
or, alternatively, maintain a redacted public record. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Because the public has a
Case 4:26-cv-00459-JGZ Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
general right to access judicial records, district courts apply a strong presumption in favor
of access when evaluating sealing motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A party moving to seal judicial records generally must
overcome this presumption with “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v.
Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. The
compelling reasons standard applies to requests to seal the entire judicial record, and a
party seeking such relief faces an especially heavy burden. Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d
1024, 1026–27 (9th Cir. 2014). Conclusory allegations of harm are insufficient to
overcome the presumption of public access. Id.
Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6, documents may be filed under seal in an
unsealed civil action only pursuant to a court order. LRCiv 5.6(a). A request to seal must
set forth the facts and legal authority justifying sealing, and the documents proposed for
sealing must be lodged separately with the Court. LRCiv 5.6(b)–(c).
Here, Plaintiff seeks to seal the entire judicial record, including the Complaint and
supporting materials concerning the substance of his claims. Plaintiff has shown
compelling reasons to protect his true name, residential address, identifying information
concerning his minor children, and other information that would reveal his protected
identity or location.
Plaintiff has not, however, demonstrated that sealing the entire case is necessary to
protect those interests. Plaintiff states that the Complaint was intentionally drafted to omit
highly identifying information and sensitive exhibits pending the Court’s ruling on
confidentiality. (Doc. 1 at 2.) The prior state court order on which Plaintiff relies likewise
employed narrower protections rather than complete sealing of the action. (Doc. 3 at 9–
11.) Those less restrictive measures, together with Plaintiff’s ability to seek leave to file
particular documents under seal pursuant to LRCiv 5.6, are sufficient at this stage to protect
his asserted safety interests while preserving the public’s right of access to judicial
proceedings. Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated compelling reasons to seal the entire
action.
Case 4:26-cv-00459-JGZ Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Case and Proceed Under
Pseudonym (Doc. 1) is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed under the pseudonym “John Doe” is granted. All
parties to this action must refer to Plaintiff in public filings as “John Doe.”
2. Plaintiff’s request to seal the entire case is denied.
3. Plaintiff may redact from public filings his true name, residential address,
identifying information concerning his minor children,1 information protected by the
Arizona Address Confidentiality Program, and other information, including the address of
the subject property, to the extent disclosure would reasonably reveal his protected identity
or location.
4. When Plaintiff or any appearing party files a document containing redactions
authorized by this Order, that party must also file an unredacted copy under seal. The
unredacted copy must identify the parties by their true names and include any information
redacted from the public filing. Plaintiff may seek leave to file particular documents or
information under seal upon a showing that sealing is warranted and that less restrictive
alternatives are inadequate, consistent with LRCiv 5.6.
5. Plaintiff shall provide his true name and current contact information to the Court
under seal within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff is authorized
to file this information under seal without filing a further motion, and the Clerk of Court
shall maintain it under seal unless otherwise ordered.
6. The Clerk of Court shall unseal the case. Pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e), Docs. 2, 3, 4,
and 5 shall not be filed.
7. Plaintiff may resubmit his Motion to Allow Electronic Filing by a Party Appearing
Without an Attorney (Doc. 5) for filing in the public record in a manner consistent with
this Order and the Local Rules
8. Plaintiff shall either pay the applicable filing fee or resubmit his Application to
1 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(b), Plaintiff must only identify
minors in any filing by the minor’s initials.
Case 4:26-cv-00459-JGZ Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 4) within fourteen (14)
days of the date this Order is filed. The Application must be completed in full for the Court
to consider granting the Application. The Application may be filed under seal in
accordance with the procedures set forth in LRCiv 5.6.
9. Plaintiff must file a complaint consistent with this Order and the Local Rules within
fourteen (14) days of the date this Order is filed. Failure to file a complaint within that
time may result in dismissal of this action.
a. Plaintiff must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The complaint must contain a short and plain statement of each
claim, organized into separately identified counts and consecutively
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances. For each claim, Plaintiff must identify: (1) the law Plaintiff
believes was violated; (2) the name of the Defendant who violated the law;
(3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how the action or
inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of the law; and
(5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that Defendant’s
conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371–72, 377 (1976).
Dated this 12th day of October, 2026.
Case 4:26-cv-00459-JGZ Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of 6