Creative Solutions Group, Inc. v. Pentzer Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that since defendants already knew plaintiff’s identify, “[o]ther than the need to make redactions and take measures to not disclose plaintiff’s identity, defendants will not be hampered or inconvenienced merely plaintiff’s anonymity in court papers”
• holding that, since the defendant already knew the plaintiff’s identity, “[o]ther than the need to make redactions and take measures to not disclose plaintiff’s identity, defendants will not be hampered or inconvenienced merely [by] plaintiff’s anonymity in court papers”
• concluding plaintiff’s submissions, which included psychiatrist’s declaration, “are sufficiently particularized and specific to establish a serious risk of harm to plaintiff’s mental health”
• concluding plaintiff’s submissions, which included psychiatrist’s declaration “are sufficiently particularized and specific to establish a serious risk of harm to plaintiff’s mental health”
• noting that “courts have granted anonymity to protect against disclosure of a wide range of issues involving matters of the utmost intimacy, including sexual assault” and collecting cases
• describing “sexual assault victims” as the “paradigmatic example of those entitled to a grant of anonymity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).