International Refugee Assistance Project et al v. Trump et al
Filing
6
NOTICE by Jane Doe 1, John Doe1-4 re 5 MOTION for Other Relief for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms (Cox, Justin)
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 6 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 3
February 8, 2017
Honorable Theodore D. Chuang
United States District Court
District of Maryland
Re: International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump,
No. 8:17-cv-00361 (TDC)
Dear Judge Chuang:
We represent the Plaintiffs in the above-referenced matter and we write to correct our
error in filing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed under Pseudonyms (Doc. No. 5)
(“Motion”), filed without observance of the proper procedures under this Court’s Case
Management Order (Doc. No. 4). In keeping with the Case Management Order, Section II.A.,
we write to request a pre-motion conference to seek leave to file this Motion.
The proposed Motion requests that five individual Plaintiffs in this action – John Does
#1-4 and Jane Doe – be permitted to proceed under pseudonyms. All five Doe Plaintiffs would
be at risk of great harm if their identities were revealed and the balance of equities tips strongly
in favor of permitting them to proceed anonymously. The Doe Plaintiffs reasonably fear that
public disclosure of their identities could subject them and/or their family members to retaliatory
action by federal government officials. Further, given the current heated debate over
immigration generally and the Executive Order which is the subject of this action, revealing
Plaintiffs’ true identities and personal stories could subject them and/or their family members to
harassment and even physical harm. Permitting these Doe Plaintiffs to proceed anonymously
would not materially harm the public interest; nor would it prejudice Defendants.
We therefore respectfully request leave to file the Motion, which relies on the standards
established in Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 274 (4th Cir. 2014), and explains in greater
detail the various grounds supporting Plaintiffs’ request to proceed anonymously in this action.
//
//
//
//
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 6 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 3
We would be happy to take any steps necessary to withdraw the filed Motion for Leave
under Pseudonyms until such time that the Court can schedule a pre-motion conference on this
motion.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Very Truly Yours,
/s/ Justin B. Cox
Justin B. Cox (Bar No. 17550)
National Immigration Law Center
1989 College Ave. NE
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: (678) 404-9119
Fax: (213) 639-3911
cox@nilc.org
Karen C. Tumlin†
Nicholas Espíritu†
Melissa S. Keaney†
Esther Sung†
National Immigration Law Center
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 639-3900
Fax: (213) 639-3911
tumlin@nilc.org
espiritu@nilc.org
keaney@nilc.org
sung@nilc.org
Omar C. Jadwat†
Lee Gelernt†
Hina Shamsi†
Hugh Handeyside†
Sarah L. Mehta†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 549-2600
Fax: (212) 549-2654
ojadwat@aclu.org
lgelernt@aclu.org
hshamsi@aclu.org
hhandeyside@aclu.org
smehta@aclu.org
Cecillia D. Wang†
Cody H. Wofsy†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 343-0770
Fax: (415) 395-0950
cwang@aclu.org
cwofsy@aclu.org
David Cole†
Daniel Mach†
Heather L. Weaver†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
915 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 6 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 3
Tel: (202) 675-2330
Fax: (202) 457-0805
dcole@aclu.org
dmach@aclu.org
hweaver@aclu.org
David Rocah (Bar No. 27315)
Deborah A. Jeon (Bar No. 06905)
Sonia Kumar (Bar No. 07196)
Nicholas Taichi Steiner (Bar
No.19670)
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Maryland
3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 350
Baltimore, MD 21211
Tel: (410) 889-8555
Fax: (410) 366-7838
jeon@aclu-md.org
rocah@aclu-md.org
kumar@aclu-md.org
steiner@aclu-md.org
†Pro Hac Vice Applications Forthcoming
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?