John Doe v. Robert Ayers, Jr.

Good Law
789 F.3d 944·2015 WL 3389004·2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8727
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 27, 201515-99006California1,407 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

The panel has voted unanimously to deny the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35: The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are denied.

We publish this order for the purpose of explaining why we deny the state’s petition and why we reject its arguments objecting to our decision to grant Petitioner’s request in the alternative to issue our opinion using a pseudonym rather than Petitioner’s real name.

As a preliminary matter, the state was afforded notice and an opportunity to brief its position regarding the use of “Doe,” a pseudonym. The procedural history is as follows. After we reached our decision on the merits — a decision that discusses the contents of sealed records — we provided a copy of our proposed opinion to the parties, and, pursuant to our normal practice, ordered them to show cause why the record should not be unsealed for the limited purpose of referring to it in the published opinion. Because Petitioner objected, arguing that the opinion should be filed under seal, we held a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.