39 F.4th 20
1st Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (initially filed as nine named John/Jane Does and many putative unnamed Does) challenged Maine’s healthcare-worker COVID-19 vaccine mandate; they have litigated under pseudonyms since filing on August 25, 2021.
- Two Maine newspapers intervened to unseal the plaintiffs’ identities; the district court granted intervention and, after briefing and a hearing, ordered plaintiffs to identify themselves, finding they had not rebutted the presumption against pseudonymous suits.
- Plaintiffs primarily relied on an undated counsel declaration (the Schmid Declaration) asserting generalized fears of employment loss and public harassment; no individualized current declarations from plaintiffs were submitted.
- The record showed plaintiffs’ identities had already been disclosed to defendants, several plaintiffs were terminated (per concessions to the Supreme Court), and two were no longer covered by the revised mandate.
- Plaintiffs appealed the disclosure order and moved in this Court for an emergency stay of the district court’s order pending appeal. The Media Intervenors and Hospital Defendants opposed the stay; the State Defendants took no position.
- The First Circuit denied the emergency stay, concluding plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the public interest favored a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stay should issue because plaintiffs are likely to prevail on appeal that they may proceed under pseudonyms | Plaintiffs claimed a reasonable fear of severe harm (job loss, ostracism, harassment) warranting anonymity, relying chiefly on the Schmid Declaration | Strong presumption against pseudonyms; plaintiffs offered no current, individualized evidence of reasonable fear; circumstances changed (identities known to defendants, some terminated, some outside mandate) | Denied — plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success; Schmid Declaration was speculative and insufficient to rebut the presumption against pseudonymity |
| Whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay | Disclosure would cause employment and reputational harm and chill litigation | No evidence of imminent or actual harm; identities already disclosed to defendants; plaintiffs continued litigation despite disclosure to defendants | Denied — plaintiffs did not demonstrate irreparable injury |
| Whether issuing a stay would substantially injure other parties and where the public interest lies | Plaintiffs: privacy and safety interests weigh for anonymity | Media Intervenors and public: strong public right of access to identify parties; press interest in disclosure | Public interest and press rights favor denial of stay |
| Standard of review and applicable stay factors | Plaintiffs sought de novo relief on stay | Court applied Nken stay framework; noted that the underlying disclosure order would be reviewed for abuse of discretion on the merits | Applied de novo review for the stay motion but required a strong showing under Nken; plaintiffs did not meet the stay factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (standards and four-factor framework for stays pending appeal)
- Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (Third Circuit multi-factor test for allowing pseudonymous civil litigation)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (balancing tests and considerations for anonymity)
- Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (First Circuit on public access and pseudonymity)
- Does 1-6 v. Mills, 16 F.4th 20 (First Circuit prior opinion in this litigation)
- Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869 (importance of identifying parties to preserve public access)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (constitutional and common-law public right of access to judicial proceedings)