XYZ Corp. v. United States
2017 CIT 124
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Plaintiff filed suit challenging CBP’s grant of Lever-Rule protection to Duracell, and initially used the pseudonym “XYZ Corporation.”
- Plaintiff obtained a judicial protective order and filed confidential (sealed) pleadings disclosing its true identity to the parties and counsel only, but continued to use the pseudonym in public filings.
- Duracell intervened permissively and objected to Plaintiff’s designation of its identity as confidential under the protective order, triggering the order’s dispute procedure.
- The protective order permits designation of proprietary, contractual, statutory/private, and other business-sensitive information as confidential, but does not list a party’s identity.
- Plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously to avoid alleged commercial and legal retaliation (e.g., trademark suits) by Duracell; Duracell and the Government opposed or deferred to the Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff’s identity qualifies as "confidential information" under the amended protective order | Identity is sensitive business information; disclosure risks commercial/legal retaliation | Identity does not fall within the protective order categories and thus is not confidential | Identity does not qualify under the protective order and cannot be designated confidential |
| Whether Plaintiff may proceed anonymously under a pseudonym | Anonymity is needed to avoid severe commercial and legal retaliation (trademark suits, bankruptcy) | Public interest and court rules require party names; economic fears do not justify anonymity | Court balanced interests and denied anonymity; fear of economic harm alone insufficient to override presumption of public identification |
Key Cases Cited
- Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) (courts must balance need for anonymity against public presumption of disclosure)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (anonymity requires balancing plaintiff’s privacy interest, public interest, and prejudice to defendants)
- United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (anonymity is a rare dispensation and requires careful discretion)
- AD HOC Utils. Grp. v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (CIT 2009) (public’s interest in knowing litigants’ identities and reference to Federal Rule principles)