DOE
v.
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff filed a motion to file certain documents under seal and to proceed pseudonymously in this case against Sterling Infosystems, Inc. The court denied the motion without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to provide legal authority supporting the request to seal documents or proceed anonymously.
The court denied Plaintiff's motion without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to provide legal authority demonstrating that sealing the documents or proceeding pseudonymously was warranted under governing law. Plaintiff was given 14 days to file a renewed motion with proper legal citations or alternatively to file an amended complaint in his true name with the disclosure statement on the public docket.
[1] A motion to seal court documents must be supported by specific legal authority demonstrating that the request is warranted under governing law.
[2] A party seeking to proceed pseudonymously must provide legal authority supporting the appropriateness of withholding their identity given the allegations of the complaint…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although Plaintiff provides general legal standards for motions to seal, however, Plaintiff provides no legal authority supporting his precise request for relief, and that withholding his identity is appropriate given the allegations of the complaint.”
Explains the deficiency in Plaintiff's motion—lack of specific legal authority for the request
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sought to file his Local Rule 3.03 disclosure statement and evidence supporting a motion to proceed pseudonymously under seal, citing the na…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Local Rule 3.03 cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Doc. No. 5. Plaintiff seeks to file under seal his disclosure statement required by Local Rule 3.03 and evidence in support of a forthcoming motion to proceed pseudonymously, stating that he wishes to keep his identity anonymous given the nature of this case. Id. Although Plaintiff provides general legal standards for motions to seal, however, Plaintiff provides no legal authority supporting his precise request for relief, and that withholding his identity is appropriate given the allegations of the complaint. Id. Cf. Doe v. Corp. Sec. Sols., Inc., 751 F. Supp. 3d 609, 616 (E.D.N.C. 2024); Doe v. RealPage, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00885-JRR, 2024 WL 2863545, at *5 (D. Md. June 6, 2024); Doe v. First Advantage Background Servs. Corp., 699 F. Supp. 3d 739, 747
(S.D. Ind. 2023); Doe v. Rentgrow, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00860-ART-EJY, 2023 WL 6541998, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2023).
Accordingly, the motion (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, which must provide citation to legal authority demonstrating that the request to seal the specific documents at issue is warranted under governing law. Alternatively, on or before this same deadline, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in his true name, along with the Local Rule 3.03 disclosure statement on the public docket.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 5, 2025.
Leslie Hoffman Price LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
-2-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doe v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 3d 609 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…(E.D.N.C. 2024); Doe v. RealPage, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00885-JRR, 2024 WL 2863545, at *5 (D. Md. June 6, 2024); Doe v. First Advantage Background Servs. Corp., 699 F. Supp. 3d 739, 747 (S.D. Ind. 2023); Doe v. Rentgrow, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00860-ART-EJY, 2023 WL 6541998, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2023). Accordingly, the motion (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, which must provide citation to legal autho…1 / 4
Authorities Cited
- Doe v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 3d 609 (M.D. Fla. 2025)