D.N.N. v. Baker
1:25-cv-01613
| D. Maryland | Jul 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, D.N.N. and V.R.G., initiated a class action asserting Administrative Procedure Act and Fifth Amendment violations related to conditions in ICE’s Baltimore Field Office holding cells.
- Plaintiffs allege inhumane and punitive treatment in the ICE “Baltimore Hold Rooms” and seek relief for themselves and similarly situated civil immigration detainees.
- Plaintiffs moved to proceed under initials or pseudonyms, requesting anonymity in public filings due to concerns about privacy, retaliation, and the sensitivity of their immigration and medical information.
- The Government did not oppose the request for named plaintiffs to proceed under initials, but objected to blanket anonymity for all putative class members without specific individualized showings.
- The court reviewed the motion under the standards for pseudonymous litigation, weighing privacy, risk of harm, age, action against the government, and potential prejudice against openness.
- The court granted anonymity for the named Plaintiffs, but denied a blanket order for all potential class members, specifying a process for future individualized requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymity under Rule 10(a) | Plaintiffs’ privacy, retaliation, and sensitive information | No blanket anonymous status for unnamed class members | Named Plaintiffs may proceed with initials; no blanket order for putative class member anonymity |
| Sensitivity of immigration/medical info | Status and medical info are highly personal, risk of harm | No opposition for named Plaintiffs, but not everyone | Sensitive info and risk justify initials for named Plaintiffs |
| Risk of harm and retaliation | Fear of retaliation by ICE, psychological harm | No specific opposition for named Plaintiffs | Finding risk present, supports anonymity for named Plaintiffs |
| Public interest vs. prejudice | Government already knows identities, no prejudice | Individual showing required for class members | No prejudice to government; process required for others |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2014) (sets the balancing test for pseudonymous litigation)
- James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1993) (outlines five-factor test for evaluating motions to proceed anonymously)