Sealed v. Sealed 1

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity must be balanced against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant”
• holding that Rule 10 “serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings” and “cannot be set aside lightly”
• holding that Rule 10 “serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings” and “cannot be set aside lightly”
• holding that Rule 10 “serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings” and “cannot be set aside lightly”
• holding that when a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the district court “is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally” and noting that “the dismissal of a pro se claim as insufficiently pleaded is appropriate only in the most unsustainable of cases.”
• observing that public has “right to know who is using their courts” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).