Casa De Maryland, Inc. et al v. Trump et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/25/2018. (kns, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

i.,~/,!JR25

*
CASA DE MARYLAND, INC, ef {I/.,

*
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: G.JH-18-8~5

*
v.
*
DONALD.I. TRUMP, ef (1/.,

*
Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 23. 2018. Plaintiffs Casa de Maryland. Inc. and Jose E. Guevara. Juan
Rodriguez. and Luis Andrade (collectively. "Individual Plaintiffs") tiled an action seeking to
eJ~oin the United States Government thlm terminating EI Salvador's designation as a Temporary
Protected Status ("TPS") country. alleging that the Government's decision to do so violates the
Equal Protection Clause and Substantive Due Process provisions of the Filih Amendment. U.S.
Cons\. amend. V. the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.c.
Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.c.

** 701-706.

** 1101-1537. and the

Pending bef(lre the Court is Individual

Plaintiffs' unopposed! Motion t()r Permission to Omit Their Home Addresses from Caption. ECF
NO.2. No hearing is necessary. Loe. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the j()lIowing reasons.
Plaintiffs' Motion is granted.

I Counsel for the respective Defendants have not yet entered appearances
or responded to the Complaint, and their
time to do so has not elapsed. Defendants Illay seek reconsideration of this Order within l.t days of their initial
responsive pleading if they choose.

0g

I.

DISCUSSION
Individual Plaintiffs request that the Court redact their home addresses and counties of

residence trom the publically-filed version of their Complaint, fearing that they "would tllce a
real risk of harassment or retaliation" ifsuch int(JI"Illationwas made publically available. ECF
NO.2 at 1_2.2 This Court's Local Rules require that complaints "shall contain the names and
address of all parties and the county of residence of any Maryland party:' See Loc. R. 102.2(a)
(2016). Similarly. the Federal Rules olTivilProcedure

require that the identities of the parties to

a case be disclosed. See Doe \".Public CilizeI7, 749 F.3d 246.273 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R.
Civ.P. 10(a)). These requirements serve the public's important interest in open judicial
proceedings: however. "in exceptional circumstances, compelling concerns relating to personal
privacy or confidentially may warrant some degree of anonymity in judicial proceedings:' Sec
it!. The Fourth Circuit has set forth the following nonexclusive factors for district courts to

consider when weighing the need for open judicial proceedings against a litigant's concern !(Jr
pnvacy:
Whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the
annoyancc and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in
a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature: whether identification poses a
risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more
critically, to innocent nonparties: the ages of the person whose privacy interests
are sought to be protected: whether the action is against a governmental or private
party: and, rclatedly, the risk of un!llirness to the opposing party lI'om allowing an
action against it to procced anonymously .

.:!

Pin cites to documents

by

tiled on the Court's electronic filing system (CMIECF) refer to the page numbers generated

that system.

2

See ill. (citing James

I'.

Jaco!J.I'oll, 6 F,3d 233. 238 (4th Cir. 1993)):1 The Court tinds that these

factors weigh in favor of allowing
record Irom the publieally-liled
Individual

Plaintiffs

Individual

Plaintiffs

to omit their addresses

version of their Complaint.

do not seck to hide their addresses

public view merely to escape the ridicule and harassment
against the Government.
(plaintiffs

and criticism

suggest that ..there is considerable
compromised
residence,"

decision

speculative.

available

Defendants'

to rescind EI Salvador's

Individual

Plaintiffs'

in a case challenging

legitimate.

the rescission

Plaintiffs

and their safety could be
and counties of
alleges that the

is motivated

by bias against

at present. is only

with making their addresses

of their lawful immigration

status are

See Doe \'. Stegall. 653 F.2d 180. 186 (5th Cir. 1981) (threats of violence

by this case, in conjunction
anonymity.

interests or "merely to

to threats of violence.

fears associated

6 F.3d at 238

Rather. Individual

Complaint

TPS designation

ECF No. 1 ~ 56. their exposure

However.

nonetheless

r plaintiffs']

or economic

litigation").

with tiling suit

(citing Jacohsoll.

public animus against immigrants.

ECF NO.2 at 2. While Individual

Latino immigrants.

generated

to prevent reputational
that may attend ...

of record li'om

that may be associated

if the public were allowed to know their home addresses

Government's

publieally

and countries

See Pllhlic Citizell. 749 F.3d at 274-75

may not use a pseudonym

avoid the annoyance

and counties of

with the other lac tors weighing

tip the balance against the customary

a/so lIi.ljJlmic Ill/crest Coalitioll

orA/ahama

Cir. 2012) (noting that revealing

illegal immigration

I'.

in Illvor of maintaining

practice of judicial

GO\'CI"IlOrorA/ahama,

openness):

see

69\ F.3d 1236. 1247 (II th

status could expose one to harassment

and

inti m idation).

:; Both Jacohson and PuNic Cili:ell considered whether a litigant may proceed under a pseudonym. not whether a
litigant may redact his or her address of record. While disclosure ora litigant's address docs not impose the same
burden on the opellness of judicial proceedings as the use of a pseudonym does. the Court finds ./acobson and Puhlic
Cili:c!11 instructive.

3

On the other hand. the countervailing
addresses

public interest in disclosing

is slight and does not justify exposing

violent reprisals.

749 F.3d at 273. Individual
the openness

because

Plaintiffs'

Individual

Plaintiffs'

harassment

or

addresses

Plaintiffs sued the Government.

addresses

!'uhiic

Ci/izl!l1.

and counties of record are of minimal import to

proceedings.4

of judicial

The Court has not evaluated
Individual

them to the risk of excessive

Plaintiffs'

While the public has an interest in knowing the names of the litigants. an

intercst further heightened

furthering

Individual

the merits of Plaintiffs'

claims. but it is unclear how

will be relevant to any questions

of law or fact that the Court

must resolve. SI!I! id (citing Fl!lI1l!dl!l!I" \'. //(1/111.227 F.3d 1244. 1246 (10th Cir. 2000) (noting
that ..the public has an important
attacking

...

interest in access to legal proceedings.

properly enacted legislation"));

7/-{ol1p. No. TDC-17-0361.

particularly

sel! a/so /11/I!rJ/a/iol1a/ Refi/!!.I!I! ilssis/al1cl!

action] such that the individual

Furthermore.

I'.

shielded

CVSCarell/ark

(D.S.C. Sept. 11. 2014) (allowing
defendants
ofplaintifrs

that allowing

the Individual

from public view will prejudice

Corp .. No. 4:13-cv-3481-RBH.

because they may not be able to lully respond to the complaint

private parties. the Government

with the background

is not vulnerable

Defendants

the Government

2014 WL 12608588.

plaintiff to proceed under pseudonym

identity and unfamiliarity

[to the

plaintifTs play only a minor role in the litigation.").

the Court has no basis to conclude

to proceed with their addresses
way.; ()." ROI!

!'rojl!c/

v.

2017 WL 818255. at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 1. 2017) (..the public interest in

the identity of the [plaintiITs] is reduced because the claim is a pure legal challenge
Government

those

in any

at *3

would prejudice
due to the uncertainty

giving rise to the suit). And unlike

to the reputation

and economic

harm associated

, Notably. only the Local Rules. nOllhe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. require plaintiffs to provide their address
and counlv of record.
5 Individu~1 PlaintitTs' do not oppose providing their addresses and counties of residence to the Government under
protective order. ECF NO.2 at 3.

4

with having a suit tiled against it such that the Court would need to require full disclosure of a
plaintiffs

identity in the interest of fairness. Internationul R~fi/gee Assistance 1'1"l!;ect, 017 WL
2

818255 at *3 (citing S. Methodist Unil'. Ass 'n/!I"Wolllen Loll' Students

1'.

Wynne & Jatfe. 599

F.2d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 1979)). Thcrefore. the Court concludes that Individual Plaintifl's' nced to
conceal their addresses and counties of records weighs against the need lor such inlonnation to
be publically disclosed.
II.

CONCLUSION
For the loregoing reasons. Individual PlaintilTs' Motion lor Permission to Omit their

Home Addresses from Caption. ECF NO.2. shall be granted. A sepa,rate Order lollows.

~4-

Dated: April Z22018

GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

5