1:24-mc-91645
D. Mass.Mar 24, 2025Background
- Applicants (Exchange Union Company and others) sought to serve subpoenas on Fidelity entities to obtain evidence for a pending civil action in Singapore involving alleged misappropriation of assets in several foreign companies.
- Fidelity notified certain unnamed parties ("Doe Intervenors"), who are foreign legal entities not named in the Singapore proceedings, that their records would be produced in response to the subpoenas.
- The Doe Intervenors moved to intervene, to proceed under pseudonyms, and for a protective order to keep their identities from the Applicants and the public, claiming confidentiality and privacy interests.
- The Applicants opposed all three motions, arguing that the Doe Intervenors lacked a sufficient interest, that their information wasn't privileged, and that there was no good cause for secrecy vis-à-vis Applicants.
- The Court was ultimately skeptical that the Doe Intervenors had an interest sufficient for intervention of right, but did permit permissive intervention and temporary pseudonymity, denying the request for a protective order.
- Protective order was denied because the Doe Intervenors failed to show good cause or a risk of specific harm warranting "attorneys' eyes only" protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention of Right | Doe Intervenors lack interest; info is not legally protectable | Confidential financial info and risk of use against them | Denied; interest not sufficient for intervention |
| Permissive Intervention | Not specifically opposed but suggest delay/prejudice | Shares questions of law/fact; want to protect information | Granted; justified by practical considerations |
| Proceeding Under Pseudonym | Not justified; no showing of harm, Intervenors are corporations | Disclosure itself is harm; risk of harassment/extortion | Granted (temporarily, vis-à-vis public only) |
| Protective Order (AEO) | No good cause; no trade secrets or credible harm shown | Needed to prevent misuse, citing past incident and privacy | Denied; no good cause demonstrated |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dingwell, 884 F.2d 629 (1st Cir. 1989) (sets 4-prong test for intervention as of right)
- Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Patch, 136 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. 1998) (defines "significantly protectable interest" for intervention)
- Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (1971) (standard for demonstrating protectable interest)
- T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. Town of Barnstable, 969 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2020) (broad discretion for permissive intervention)
- Doe v. MIT, 46 F.4th 61 (1st Cir. 2022) (factors for proceeding pseudonymously)
- Theidon v. Harvard Univ., 314 F.R.D. 333 (D. Mass. 2016) (standards for attorneys' eyes only protective orders)