D.B.U. et al v. Trump et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case No. 1:25-cv-01163-CNS Document11__ filed 04/14/25 USDC Colorado pgi
of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney

Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-01163-CNS

D.B.U. and R.M.M., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,

V.

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States:
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official
Capacity;

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;

TODD LYONS, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his
official capacity;

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT;

MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of State, in his official capacity;

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT;

ROBERT GAUDIAN, Director of the Denver Field Office for U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; and

DAWN CEJA, Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility, in her official capacity,

Respondents-Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed Under
Pseudonym. ECF No. 3. After examining the motion and relevant legal authority, the
Court concludes responsive briefing would not materially assist the Court’s resolution of

the motion and GRANTS the motion for the following reasons.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) governs pleadings and parties’ names,
mandating generally that pleadings contain the names of parties. However, parties may
be pseudonymized under certain circumstances. See, e.g., Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d
1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000); D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.
Weighing the “public interest,” the Court concludes “anonymity is warranted” in
permitting Petitioners-Plaintiffs to proceed under their initials. Femedeer, 227 F.3d at
1246 (citation omitted). The Court is persuaded this is the “exceptional” case presenting
“matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature.” Id. See also ECF No. 3 at 3–4. Indeed,
“numerous courts have recognized the unique vulnerabilities of asylum seekers” and
similarly situated individuals and “allowed them to proceed pseudonymously as a result.”
Doe v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, No. 1:23-cv-00971-MLG-JMR, 2024 WL 4389461,
at *2 (D.N.M. Oct. 3, 2024) (collecting cases). The Court finds their reasoning persuasive
and adopts it. See also B.S.L. v. Garland, No. 21-9519, 2022 WL 985817, at *1 (10th Cir.
Apr. 1, 2022).
Moreover, 	Petitioners-Plaintiffs 	persuade, 	in 	addition 	to 	satisfying 	this
pseudonymity condition, they face sufficient dangers and risks of injury, including risks of
physical harm, such that disclosure of their identities justifies pseudonymity in the form of
proceeding under their initials. See ECF No. 3 at 4–7. See also Femedeer, 227 F.3d at
1246. Other courts have addressed analogous factual circumstances and permitted
pseudonymity. 	The 	Court, 	again 	finding 	their 	reasoning 	persuasive, 	and 	having
considered the public interest relative to Petitioners’ request for relief and supporting
arguments, follows suit. See, e.g., Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. CV
Case No. 1:25-cv-01163-CNS Document 11 filed 04/14/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
TDC-17-0361, 2017 WL 818255, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 1, 2017); Doe v. United States Dep’t
of State, No. 1:15-CV-01971, 2015 WL 9647660, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2015).
Finally, as part of its consideration of the public interest, the Court has considered
any 	prejudice 	the 	government 	may 	suffer 	in 	permitting 	Petitioners 	to 	proceed
pseudonymously. See also ECF No. 3 at 8. The Court discerns a minimal amount,
particularly where Petitioners represent their willingness to disclose their identities to the
government, subject to protections from retaliation and pseudonymity in court filings, and
Petitioners have a privacy right in proceeding pseudonymously, given the nature of this
case and for substantially the same reasons this case involves highly sensitive and
personal information. See ECF No. 3 at 7; Roe v. Cath. Health Initiatives Colorado, No.
11-cv-02179-WYD-KMT, 2012 WL 12840, at *5 (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2012); Int’l Refugee
Assistance Project, 2017 WL 818255, at *3.
To be sure, court proceedings are presumptively open to the public. See Doe v.
Regents of Univ. of Colorado, 603 F. Supp. 3d 1014, 1019 (D. Colo. 2022). But,
notwithstanding 	this 	presumption, 	parties 	may, 	under 	certain 	exceptions, 	proceed
pseudonymously. See, e.g., Femedeer, 227 F.3d at 1246. Because Petitioners satisfy
those exceptions, they may proceed pseudonymously and use their initials in court filings
and pleadings in this action.
* * *
Consistent with the above analysis, Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to
Proceed Under Pseudonym, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED.
Case No. 1:25-cv-01163-CNS Document 11 filed 04/14/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

Case No. 1:25-cv-01163-CNS Document11_ filed 04/14/25 USDC Colorado pg4
of 4

DATED this 14th day of 2025.