DOE et al v. RUBIO et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JANE DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Civil Action No. 25-4210
MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as
US Secretary of State, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Jane and John Doe are a married couple. See ECF No. 1 (Compl.), ¶ 3. Jane is
a U.S. citizen, id., ¶ 77, but John is a Russian national who needs a visa to join his wife in the
United States. See id., ¶ 78. He applied for the relevant visa, was interviewed at a U.S.
consulate, and a consular officer told him that the visa would be issued in a few days. Id., ¶¶ 79–
84. That was eight months ago. Id., ¶ 92. Since then, John’s visa has languished in
administrative processing, id., ¶ 93, and he and Jane have brought this action to compel
Defendants to promptly adjudicate his application. Id. at 35. They now move to proceed
pseudonymously. See ECF No. 2 (Mot.) at 1. The Court will grant their Motion.
I. 	Legal Standard
Generally, a complaint must identify the plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a);
LC VR 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.” In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d 92, 96 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Wash. Legal
Case 1:25-cv-04210-MAU Document 3 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Found. v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 89 F.3d 897, 899 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). 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.” In re Sealed Case, 971 F.3d 324, 326 (D.C. Cir. 2020). As a result, the court
must “‘balance the litigant’s legitimate interest in anonymity against countervailing interests in
full disclosure’” by applying a “flexible and fact driven” balancing test. Id. (quoting Sealed
Case, 931 F.3d at 96). That test assesses “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 a sensitive and highly personal nature;
(2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the
requesting party or[,] even more critically, to innocent non-parties;
(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 relatedly,
(5) the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to
proceed anonymously.
Id. at 326–27 (cleaned up).
II. 	Analysis
Plaintiffs have shown that their interest in pseudonymity outweighs the public’s interest
in learning their identities.
First, Plaintiff John Doe is not seeking “merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that
may attend any litigation.” Id. at 326. This factor favors pseudonymity if naming a plaintiff
would expose facts whose disclosure would threaten his safety. Sponsor v. Mayorkas, 2023 WL
2598685, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2023); Doe v. Federal Republic of Germany, 680 F. Supp. 3d 1,
5 (D.D.C. 2023). That is the case here. John is an independent journalist, and his Complaint
alleges that journalists who displease the Russian government are sometimes imprisoned, exiled,
Case 1:25-cv-04210-MAU Document 3 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 5

3
or even killed. See Compl., ¶ 98. That is a risk for John because he has deep ties to the United
States: he got his PhD here, previously lived here, is married to a U.S. citizen, and hopes to
emigrate here. Id., ¶¶ 3–4, 97, 99. The State Department warns that “Russian officials have
questioned and threatened U.S. citizens without reason,” “Russian security services have arrested
U.S. citizens on false charges,” and the Russian legal system has “denied [U.S. citizens] fair
treatment and convicted them without credible evidence.” Id., ¶ 96 (quoting Russian Federation
Travel Advisory, Travel.State.Gov (Aug. 5, 2025), https://perma.cc/8AN9-9RTB). So it urges
Americans, “Do not travel to Russia for any reason” and “U.S. citizens in Russia should leave
immediately.” Id. (quoting Russian Federation Travel Advisory). In sum, John Doe is an
independent journalist, and disclosing his name would publicize his ties to the United States.
That disclosure could put him in danger.
True, John is currently in a third country and is trying to avoid going back to Russia. Id.,
¶ 102; Mot at 1. But he has only a temporary visa, and at some point he might have to return to
his native country. See Compl., ¶ 103; Mot at 4. If that happens, and if his identity were
publicly connected with the facts here, he would be at risk of harassment, imprisonment, or even
violence. As for Jane Doe, identifying her would risk identifying her husband. See S.T. ex rel.
Shanisha L. v. Bisignano, 2025 WL 2817734, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 2025) (identifying mother
risked identifying her daughter). This factor therefore favors pseudonymity for both Plaintiffs.
The second factor asks “whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or
mental harm.” Sealed Case, 971 F.3d at 326. Courts in this district have sometimes held that if
identifying a plaintiff would expose him to danger, then he wins this test’s first and second
factors. Sponsor, 2023 WL 2598685, at *2; Doe v. Germany, 680 F. Supp. 3d at 5. If that is
right, then this factor favors pseudonymity for the reasons above. All the same, that conflation
Case 1:25-cv-04210-MAU Document 3 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 5

4
risks making the first and second factors duplicative. Whether the danger to John belongs in
factor (1) or factor (2) is an interesting scholastic exercise, but it does not matter here. His
interest in his safety is so strong that the Court would grant his Motion no matter which factor
that interest belongs in.
As for the ages of the people with relevant privacy interests, Plaintiffs are both adults, so
this factor weighs against letting them proceed pseudonymously. See Mot. at 5.
Moving on to the fourth factor, the defendant’s identity, this factor usually favors
pseudonymity when a plaintiff sues the government, J.W. v. District of Columbia, 318 F.R.D.
196, 201 (D.D.C. 2016), as Plaintiffs do here. True, this factor tips the other way if a plaintiff is
seeking programmatic relief that would change public policy — in which case the public has a
stronger interest in learning who is trying to change law affecting many others. Sealed Case, 971
F.3d at 329. But in this suit, Plaintiffs seek individualized relief: they argue that John Doe’s visa
application has been improperly delayed, so Defendants must promptly adjudicate his visa. See
Compl., ¶¶ 16–17. That favors pseudonymity. Doe v. Blinken, No. 24-1629, ECF No. 3 (Mem.
Op.) at 5 (D.D.C. June 11, 2024).
Finally, letting Plaintiffs proceed pseudonymously would not prejudice Defendants. This
factor favors pseudonymity if the defendant knows who the plaintiff is. Sealed Case, 971 F.3d at
326 n.1. Plaintiffs have already disclosed their identities to Defendants in a sealed declaration,
see Mot. at 5, so this factor favors them.
Plaintiffs want to remain pseudonymous to protect John Doe’s safety. They seek
individualized relief from the government, and pseudonymity will not prejudice Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ status as adults does not outweigh those facts, so the Court will grant their Motion to
Proceed Under Pseudonyms.
Case 1:25-cv-04210-MAU Document 3 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 5

5
The Court accordingly ORDERS that:
1. 	Plaintiffs’ [2] Unopposed Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Administrative
Motion to File Under Seal is GRANTED, subject to any further consideration by the
United States District Judge to whom this case is randomly assigned;
2. 	All parties shall use the pseudonyms listed in the Complaint in all documents filed in
this action; and
3. 	Within fourteen days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file:
i. 	A pseudonymous version of their [2] Motion on the public docket; and
ii. 	A sealed declaration containing their real names and residential
addresses.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
Chief Judge
Date: December 9, 2025
Case 1:25-cv-04210-MAU Document 3 Filed 12/09/25 Page 5 of 5