Comments on: Of Sex Tapes, Pseudonymous Litigation, and Judicial Bungling

By: Busy Lawyer

Busy Lawyer — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:38:43 +0000

thanks SO MUCH for sharing your expertise; last minute pleading — very helpful!!!

By: Daniel J. Solove

Daniel J. Solove — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:57:09 +0000

Ted -- check out my follow-up post here where I discuss the problems with the lawyers.

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:08:25 +0000

I agree with Aardvark. Before criticizing the court for an “outrageous” error, be sure that there’s an error. If Doe made a motion to file part of the brief under seal, and the motion was granted, there’s an outrageous error. If she didn’t, the clerk has no way of knowing that the pdf file that was submitted is supposed to have a redacted 26.1 submission, and Doe has no one to blame but her attorney. I hate to accuse you and Lior of ivory-towerism, but any attorney with experience with documents filed under seal knows that a separate motion needs to be made in the appellate court. You’ll note that Bashman doesn’t blame the court, but simply asks who bears responsibility.

By: arbitraryaardvark

arbitraryaardvark — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:33:33 +0000

For those who havent had the pleasure of dealing with the 7th circuit’s electronic filing system, it is my guess it was her lawyer who put the document online, as instructed, and failed to make arrangments to have the key info under seal.

I had a lower court in indianapolis unfairly, I thought, dismiss plaintiff “Anonymous” in Majors v Abell, a case about anonymity. Since it is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard, I didn’t appeal on that ground – there were more important errors at issue, but it was an early clue we faced a hostile court.

By: Ciarand Denlane

Ciarand Denlane — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:04:52 +0000

“Thanks” to How Appealing? I enjoy reading that website. So do a lot of other people. Isn’t that a problem in this context? By highlighting the publication of the name in an appellate brief that might have otherwise been little read or noticed, Mr. Bashman may have greatly magnified the privacy invasion he was deploring. It’s hard to say, for sure, as the key words in the prior sentence are “might” and “may,” so perhaps Bashman has done the broader cause of litigant privacy a service. But it still strikes me that an e-mail to the clerk of the court would have been better than a posting on a prominent website.

By: Concurring Opinions

Concurring Opinions — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:18:33 +0000

More on Pseudonymous Litigation

Howard Bashman offers these further thoughts about the issue of pseudonymous litigation and the sex tape case I blogged about earlier today: In terms of assessing blame, however, in my view it is the attorney for the pseudonymous party who…

By: Paul M. Secunda

Paul M. Secunda — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:56:20 +0000

As far as recent pseudonymous litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court, see also City of San Diego v. Roe (U.S. Dec. 2004), in which the Court, per curiam, upheld the discharge of a San Diego policeman for producing and distributing porn starring himself (under a pseudonym) on eBay. Fascinating First Amendment public employee case that I thought of when I read this and Lior’s post.