Doe v. Volokh, 78 F.4th 38

New Hampshire maintains an "Exculpatory Evidence Schedule" (EES) listing officers alleged to have credibility-related misconduct; state law gives notified officers 180 days to sue to keep their names nonpublic during a challenge.
"Doe," a former Lisbon police officer, sued (initially in state court) challenging his EES listing and sought damages plus injunctive/declaratory relief; the case was removed to federal court and the state claims to remove the name were remanded.
A single page of the original state complaint inadvertently contained Doe's real name in a file-path footer; the state court sealed the state docket, and the federal docket contains a redacted complaint omitting the name.
Doe proceeded pseudonymously in federal court; Eugene Volokh intervened to unseal the sealed state complaint and to challenge Doe's use of a pseudonym, arguing public access and First Amendment interests.
The district court allowed Volokh to intervene but denied his motion to unseal and to oppose pseudonymity; Volokh appealed, and the First Circuit assumed jurisdiction to decide the merits.
The First Circuit affirmed: applying Doe v. MIT, the court held this falls within the category of "prior proceeding made confidential by law," and the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Doe to proceed pseudonymously.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists over Volokh's interlocutory appeal	Volokh implicitly: appealable; Doe: jurisdiction is lacking	Court assumed jurisdiction for merits; no Article III bar	Court assumed jurisdiction and decided merits in favor of Doe
Whether Doe may proceed pseudonymously / unsealing request	Doe: EES challenge statute and state secrecy interests justify anonymity	Volokh: public/First Amendment presumptive right to court records and to know litigant identities	Case fits Doe v. MIT's fourth category ("prior proceeding made confidential by law"); pseudonymity ordinarily warranted; district court not abuse of discretion
Whether pursuing damages in same suit defeats pseudonymity	Doe: damages arise from same transaction; forcing identity would bar damages via preclusion concerns	Volokh: filing for damages undermines public's right to know and weighs against anonymity	Court: damages claims tied to same occurrence do not compel denial of anonymity on these facts; anonymity may be retained without forcing forfeiture of damages claims

Doe v. MIT, 46 F.4th 61 (1st Cir. 2022) (framework identifying four categories of exceptional cases for party anonymity)
Does 1-3 v. Mills, 39 F.4th 20 (1st Cir. 2022) (strong presumption against pseudonymous civil litigation)
Courthouse News Serv. v. Quinlan, 32 F.4th 15 (1st Cir. 2022) (sealing newly filed complaints can implicate First Amendment right of access)
Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2014) (First Amendment analysis for sealing and redaction of court records)
Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1984) (preclusion principles governing claim preclusion between state and federal proceedings)