DOE v. SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIET NAM
1:25-cv-03226
D.D.C.
Sep 29, 2025
Check Treatment
Docket

JOHN DOE v. SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM, et al.

Civil Action No. 25-3226 (JEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

September 29, 2025

James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff is a “U.S. Military Legal Officer” who alleges that he was kidnapped and tortured in Vietnam in connection with his work in that role. See ECF No. 1 (Compl.), ¶¶ 1-5. He brought this pro se action against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, agents of that government, and agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, alleging that Defendants subjeсted him to “severe physical and psychological pain and suffering, including beating, poisoning, unlawful detention, and denial of medical care” and are therefore liable under 28 U.S.C. § 1350 for torture, extrajudicial detention, and attempted extrajudicial killing. Id., ¶¶ 28-29. Plaintiff further alleges that “Defendants knowingly aidеd, abetted, and conspired with Hezbollah, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and other Iranian proxy groups,” making them liable under 28 U.S.C. § 1605B for “conspirаcy to commit international terrorism against a U.S. national.” Id., ¶¶ 30-31. Fearful that disclosure of his identity “may place him at renewed risk of retaliation, surveillance, or further harm by foreign state actors,” he now moves to proceed pseudonymously. See ECF No. 2 (Mot.) at 3. The Court will grant the Motion — although it is somewhat threadbare — subject to any further consideration by the United States District Judge to whom this case is randomly assigned. See LCvR 40.7(f) (providing that Chief Judge shall “hеar and determine . . . motion[s] to file a pseudonymous complaint“); id. 5.1(h)(1) (“Absent statutory authority, no case or document may be sealed without an ordеr from the Court.“).

I. Legal Standard

Generally, a complaint must identify the plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); LCvR 5.1(c)(1). This identification requirement reflects the “presumption in favor of disclosure [of litigants’ identities], which stems from the ‘general public interest in the openness of governmental processes,’ and, more specifically, from the tradition of open judicial proceedings.”

(quoting
). A party moving to proceed pseudonymously thus “bears the weighty burden of both demonstrating a concrete need for ‍​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍such secrecy[] and identifying the cоnsequences that would likely befall it if forced to proceed in its own name.”
. As a result, the court must “‘balance the litigant‘s legitimate interest in anonymity аgainst countervailing interests in full disclosure‘” by applying a “flexible and fact driven” balancing test.
(quoting
). That test assesses “five non-exhaustive factors“:

[1] whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merеly to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of [a] sensitive and highly personаl nature;

[2] whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or[,] even more critically, to innоcent non-parties;

[3] the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are sought to be protected;

[4] whether the action is against а governmental or private party; and, relatedly,

[5] the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to procеed anonymously.

(quoting
) (first alteration in original).

II. Analysis

At this early stage, Plaintiff has met his burden to show that his privacy and safety interests ‍​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍outweigh the public‘s presumptive and substantial interest in learning his idеntity.

First, as the Complaint makes clear, Plaintiff does not seek to proceed under a pseudonym “merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation,” but to “preserve privacy in a matter of [a] sensitive and highly personal nature.”

(quoting
) (alteration in original). The Complаint describes the severe violence Plaintiff has already faced and could continue to face if his identity were made public upon filing this lawsuit. Fоr example, on July 27, 2022, Defendants allegedly entered Plaintiff‘s temporary residence, accused him of being a “fake U.S. Citizen,” and proceedеd to beat him. See Compl., ¶ 15. From there, Plaintiff was transferred to a detention facility, where he “was held for three days and two nights in a 2x2 meter cell . . . [and] subjеcted to repeated questioning, threats, detention, and physical torture.”
A subsequent medical evaluation determined that he had been pоisoned and had suffered “head trauma, spinal injuries, bruising, and neurological damage.”
The Complaint thus reveals Plaintiff “seek[s] to avoid much graver harms thаn mere annoyance and criticism.”
.

For similar reasons, the second factor concerning the “risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm” to Plaintiff and to “innocent non-parties” also counsels granting the Motion.

(citation omitted). Plaintiff explains that he was targeted “specifically because of his affiliation with the United States Military and his legal advisory ‍​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍work.” Mot. at 4. Revealing his identity “would expose him to further risks, including surveillance, harassment, or even renewed physical harm.”
Plaintiff supports that assertion by describing specific threats of retaliation that he and his associates have rеceived. For instance, while carrying out investigatory and prosecutorial duties, he allegedly received a threatening call from Defendаnts stating, “Do not investigate or complain against us, or you will disappear.” Compl., ¶ 14. When Plaintiff eventually left Vietnam, his associate received а similar call seeking to stymie investigations into the kidnapping and torture, saying Plaintiff “has left Saigon and Vietnam and is now residing in the United States. You are not authоrized to complain about our actions. If you do complain, you will disappear.” Id., ¶ 20. While the threats in the Complaint are rather sparse and “[d]iscovery may well render [Plaintiff‘s] concerns unsupported and unwarranted,”
, at this early stage, the Court finds that he has made a sufficient showing with respeсt to the second factor.

The third factor, in contrast, supports disclosure. Nothing in Plaintiff‘s Complaint or Motion suggests that his case implicates the privacy of minors. See Mot. at 1-5;

.

The fourth factor bolsters the case for non-disclosure. Plaintiff has sued only foreign governmental actors, and “anonymous litigation is more acceptable when the defendant is a governmental body because government defendants ‘do not share the cоncerns about “reputation” that private individuals have when they are publicly charged with wrongdoing.‘”

(quoting
); see also
(distinguishing “private litigants, who presumably have concеrns about their respective reputations“). Although Plaintiff alleges serious wrongdoing on the part of Vietnamese and Iranian state actors, see Compl., ¶¶ 1-5, the public will be able to monitor the case here regardless of whether Plaintiff uses a pseudonym because he has filed his lawsuit on the рublic docket, not under seal.
. The fourth factor therefore supports the Motion.

Finally, the fifth factor favors pseudonymity. Defendants would suffer no “risk of unfairness” if Plaintiff‘s Motion were granted,

, аs he has offered “to disclose his identity to the Court and to the parties under appropriate protective order.” Mot. at 4. Upon the filing of the pseudonymous Complaint, Defendants will remain free to request any further information they deem necessary to the full and fair defense of the сase, and Plaintiff will remain free to object.

In sum, although the third factor weighs against pseudonymity, the remaining factors favor permitting Plaintiff to procеed under a pseudonym at this stage, particularly given the serious danger and threats he has faced.

The Court accordingly ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiff‘s [2] Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym is GRANTED, subjeсt to any further consideration by the United States District Judge to whom this case is randomly assigned;
  2. All parties shall use the pseudonym listed in the Complaint in all documents filed in this action; and
  3. Within fourteen days of this Order, Plaintiff must file:
    1. A pseudonymous version of his [2] Motion on the public docket; and
    2. A sealed declaration containing his ‍​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍real name and residential address.

/s/ James E. Boasberg

JAMES E. BOASBERG

Chief Judge

Date: September 29, 2025