In Re: Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Alien Tort Statute and Shareholders Derivative Litigation, 0:08-md-01916

MDL arising from alleged Colombian AUC abuses; Eleventh Circuit affirmed district court order discontinuing pseudonyms and Supreme Court denied certiorari before mandate issued in Oct. 2021.
Bellwether plaintiffs (non-Wolf) moved to renew protective relief to proceed anonymously and two plaintiffs (John Doe 7 and Jane Doe 7) moved individually claiming unique security risks.
Plaintiffs relied on expert affidavits describing generalized risks to human-rights defenders in Colombia and a Colombian "Sentencia" tied to John Doe 7; they argued changed circumstances justify renewed anonymity.
Defendants and the court emphasized longstanding public litigation by hundreds of Colombian plaintiffs under their true names without reported reprisals and the lack of specific threats tied to participation in this suit.
The court denied the renewed request to proceed anonymously MDL‑wide and denied the individual motions for Doe 7s, finding no evidence of a real, particularized threat, but granted limited alternative protections.
Alternative protections: plaintiffs must identify themselves on the record within 45 days or face dismissal; parties are barred from publishing plaintiffs’ true names outside court proceedings and from disclosing private email, financial, medical, or psychological information except as necessary for litigation and with court leave.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Renewed MDL‑wide anonymity	Changed circumstances in Colombia; generalized risk to human‑rights defenders warrants pseudonyms	No specific threats; many plaintiffs litigated publicly without incident; openness of courts governs	Denied; plaintiffs must identify themselves within 45 days or be dismissed; MDL‑wide rule applies
Individual relief for John Doe 7 & Jane Doe 7	Unique, heightened security concerns (land restitution Sentencia, ties to killings)	No evidence of specific threats or causal nexus to participation in this litigation	Denied; no concrete evidence of imminent or particularized harm
Alternative limited protective measures	If anonymity denied, request non‑publication of names and protection of private medical/financial data	Agreed limited confidentiality outside court filings; defendants supported MDL‑wide application	Granted limited relief: prohibit publishing names outside court proceedings and bar disclosure of private emails/financial/medical/psychological info except for litigation use and with court leave
Scope of identification requirement	Limit requirement to 2019/2021 bellwether plaintiffs	MDL‑wide identification promotes efficiency and avoids repeated motions	Court adopted MDL‑wide identification requirement (not limited to bellwether groups)

In re: Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc., 965 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2020) (establishes narrow, exceptional‑case standard and factors for permitting pseudonymous litigation)
Plaintiff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2011) (movant bears burden to show privacy interests outweigh presumption of open judicial proceedings)