govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01557-0

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
OCHO DOE, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. Civil Action No. 26-1557 
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 Plaintiff Ocho Doe was born in Iran but moved to the United States in 1999 and is now a 
naturalized American citizen. See ECF No. 1 (Compl.), ¶ 5. While Doe has left Iran’s territory, 
however, he has not escaped the reach of its Government. He spent years covering Iran as a 
journalist with V oice of America and Iran International. Id. That reporting — which was 
presumably none too flattering to the Islamic Republic — “made him a prominent and publicly 
known voice of Iranian opposition journalism.” Id., ¶ 17. It also made him a target of the 
Iranian Government’s reprisal. Id. 
 Iran has arrested Plaintiff’s relatives, id., ¶¶ 22–23, 38; threatened Plaintiff and his 
family, id., ¶¶ 24–27; and even apparently directed three attacks against Plaintiff, in which 
groups of assailants beat him — and, in one incident, cut him with a knife. Id., ¶¶ 28–36. 
Plaintiff thus sued Iran for damages under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Id., ¶¶ 45–70; 
id. at 17. He now moves to proceed pseudonymously. See ECF No. 2 (Mot.). The Court will 
grant his Motion. 

 2 
I. Legal Standard 
Generally, a complaint must identify the plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); 
LCVR 5.1(c)(1). That 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.” In re Sealed 
Case, 931 F.3d 92, 96 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Wash. Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing 
Comm’n, 89 F.3d 897, 899 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). A party moving to proceed pseudonymously thus 
“bears the weighty burden of both demonstrating a concrete need for such secrecy, and 
identifying the consequences that would likely befall it if forced to proceed in its own name.” In 
re Sealed Case, 971 F.3d 324, 326 (D.C. Cir. 2020). As a result, the court must “‘balance the 
litigant’s legitimate interest in anonymity against countervailing interests in full disclosure’” by 
applying a “flexible and fact driven” balancing test. Id. (quoting In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d at 
96). That test assesses “five non-exhaustive factors”: 
(1) whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the 
annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy 
in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; 
(2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the 
 requesting party or[,] even more critically, to innocent non-parties; 
(3) the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are sought to be protected; 
(4) whether the action is against a governmental or private party; and relatedly, 
(5) the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to 
 proceed anonymously. 
Id. at 326–27 (cleaned up). 

 3 
II. Analysis 
 Plaintiff has shown that his interest in pseudonymity outweighs the public’s interest in 
learning his identity. 
 Starting with the first factor, Plaintiff seeks to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive 
details. That includes using pseudonymity to protect the safety of oneself and one’s family. 
Sponsor v. Mayorkas, 2023 WL 2598685, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2023). Here, Plaintiff alleges 
that he and his family have been subject to years of threats and even physical attacks at the hands 
of Iranian proxies. Apparent Iranian agents have sent Doe death threats, at least one of which 
included photographs of his house and family members. See Compl., ¶¶ 25–27. And it seems 
that Iran’s proxies have three times set gangs of attackers on Plaintiff — including one attack 
that left Plaintiff in critical condition. Id., ¶¶ 28–36. Doe wants to remain anonymous to protect 
himself and his family from further threats and violence, see Mot. at 5–6, which this factor 
favors. 
 The second factor — a risk of retaliatory harm — similarly weighs toward pseudonymity. 
The incidents described above were, Doe alleges, in retaliation for his reporting that was 
unfavorable to the Iranian regime. See Compl., ¶¶ 17, 22–23, 34–35, 38. His Complaint 
likewise publicly accuses the Islamic Republic of actions that, if true, it would surely prefer to 
keep hidden: that it arrests its own citizens and holds them as hostages to deter foreign journalists 
from speaking out, id., ¶¶ 22–23, 38, and that it sics goons on foreign journalists to intimidate 
them into silence. Id., ¶¶ 28–36. It seems plausible that attaching Doe’s name to these 
accusations would put him and his family in further danger — especially now that he is also 
suing the Iranian Government for more than $50 million. Id. at 17. The “risk of retaliatory . . . 
harm to” Plaintiff — and, “even more critically, to innocent non- parties” — thus argues for 

 4 
letting him proceed pseudonymously. In re Sealed Case, 971 F.3d at 326 (quotation marks 
omitted). 
 Doe concedes that the third factor (the age of the people whose privacy interests are at 
stake) goes against him, since he is an adult. See Mot. at 8. 
 As for the identity of the defendants, this factor tips toward pseudonymity when a 
plaintiff is suing a government for individualized relief. Doe v. Rubio, 2025 WL 3522731, at *2 
(D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2025). Plaintiff checks both boxes. He has sued the Government of Iran, its 
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, see Compl., 
¶ 1 — governmental entities all. And he is seeking damages, id. at 17, which is a form of 
individualized relief. 
 Finally, letting Plaintiff proceed pseudonymously will not prejudice Defendants. He has 
offered to disclose his identity to Defendants under seal (in the unlikely event that Iran appears 
and defends this action), which will protect his name from disclosure to the third parties who 
threaten him without limiting Defendants’ ability to guard their rights in this suit. See Mot. at 
11; J.K.A. v. United States, 2023 WL 12248425, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 10, 2023) (when plaintiff 
makes such offer, this factor argues for pseudonymity). 
 The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s Motion. 
The Court accordingly ORDERS that: 
1. Plaintiff’s [2] Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym is GRANTED, subject 
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 

 5 
3. Within fourteen days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a pseudonymous version of his 
[2] Motion on the public docket. 
 
/s/ James E. Boasberg 
JAMES E. BOASBERG 
Chief Judge 
Date: June 2, 2026 
 

Passage view · GavelSight