Epstein Secrets

hough some Plaintiffs no longer live in the Palm Beach area, this should not undermine Plaintiffs’ need for anonymity. As the Court in Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 197 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal citation omitted), points out, “[I]t is now possible to ‘determine whether a given individual is a pa

imited number of exceptions to the general requirement of disclosure, which permit plaintiffs to proceed anonymously.” Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 685 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). “The 4 Although some Plaintiffs

ntitled to a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D. N.Y. 2006); Doe v. Blue Cr

anonymity. See, e.g., Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 685-87 (11th Cir.2001); Does I th

Co., 123 F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Sexual assault victims are a paradigmatic example of those entitled to a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 21 Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D. N.Y. 2006); Doe'. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir.1997) ("fictitious names are allowed w

IFFS Federal courts permit a party to proceed under a pseudonym when special circumstances warrant anonymity. See, e.g., Roe,. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 685-87 (11th Cir.2001); Does I thnt XXIII Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2000); James , Jacobson, 6 F.3d 2