Published on:

In recent years, there has been an increase in cyber-attacks directed towards usernames and passwords for online banking accounts.  Through these attacks, outside parties have been able to misuse banking information for fraudulent wire transfers.  Hackers have starting using foreign accounts because it is more difficult to recover funds when dealing with some foreign banks.  Online banking fraud has led to over $40 million in stolen funds from small and mid-size companies.  Recently, the nature of these attacks have become more complex as regulatory agencies, e.g., the FDIC, and enforcing agencies, e.g., the FBI, scramble to keep up with changing technologies.

How Have Online Cyber-Attacks Changed In Recent Years?

In recent years, online banking fraud has become dramatically more sophisticated.  Now, hackers have the capacity to infect not only small, local sites, but also high-volume webpages all across web.  These hackers infect popular websites with Trojan viruses, which latch onto users’ computers when they visit the website.  The virus then directs to online banking information, such as account numbers and login information, allowing the hackers to access these accounts and conduct fraudulent transactions.  The virus may even have the capacity to record and hold this information itself.  To carry through the cyber-attack, criminals only need to setup funds transfers without the respective bank noticing.  Banks learned to watch for transfer activity from unknown computers, so now hackers steal victims’ IP addresses to avoid detection.  With this information, the transfer looks like a typical transaction from the user’s computer.  The hackers may obtain the ability to take control of a computer and use it to conduct fraudulent transfers.

How Can a Business Protect Itself Against Online Banking Fraud?

Businesses are generally charged with a duty to take reasonable measures to protect their customers’ financial information.  The topic of how much protection is “reasonable” continues to be the subject of litigation in various courts.  Indeed, a court may hold a business liable for failing to take the appropriate steps to protect a consumer’s information.  Therefore, it is important that companies implement measures to shield customer information from cyber-attacks.  First, businesses can provide added protection against online banking fraud by providing an added level of security for transactions.  For example, a company can require a fax confirmation of an order, a signature on the order that matches a signature on file, or a telephonic verification by an authorized customer.  Additionally, cyber-attacks typically take place over email messages or while a user is on the web.  Therefore, to avoid providing access to attackers, businesses can set aside a computer for their online transactions that does not receive emails or have access to the web.  While this does require an added cost for the computer and its maintenance, it also provides a virtual barrier for financial records.  Without access to the computer, hackers cannot get to the bank account information.  Finally, frequently monitoring online banking activity can help catch illegal activity quickly, which makes cyber-attacks more difficult.  Sometimes, banks are willing to reverse fraudulent transfers if users promptly report the activity.

At our law firm, we provide guidance and legal expertise to help businesses and individuals protect against cyber-attacks.  You may contact us to discuss the steps you can take to protect your online banking information.

Published on:

One of the fundamental constitutional protections is the freedom of press.  Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the press (i.e., journalists, reporters, newspapers) enjoys freedom from government censorship.  However, this right must be balanced against the individual right to privacy.  Furthermore, as an added protection for privacy, state laws provide protections against defamation.  Generally, defamation proceedings have included claims against traditional journalists—namely, journalists working for newspapers and other printed publications.  However, since a 2011 Ninth Circuit decision, the free press standards have been expanded to include bloggers as well as traditional print journalists.  The growth of the Internet empowers more people to discuss and spread the news.  Therefore, this expanded protection will need to continue balancing free press considerations with individual privacy considerations.

What Are the Principles Considerations for a Defamation Claim?

To establish a claim for defamation, a party must show a: (1) knowing, (2) publication, (3) of a false statement of fact, (4) concerning the party, (5) that tends to harm the party’s reputation.  Generally, there must also be evidence that the publication was a result of negligence or malice.  For example, a claim for defamation likely would not stand if the party did not know that the information was actually false.  There are two forms of defamation—libel, which applies to written defamation, and slander, which applies to oral defamation.  Defendants who are accused of defamation may raise a defense if the publication is true.  However, it is often difficult and expensive to litigate and prove truth since it requires extensive discovery into the facts of the publication.  Additionally, publications that are opinions may also be free from the threat of defamation.  Still, simply labeling a publication an “opinion” will not automatically protect it from defamation.  The courts will look to see whether a reasonable reader or listener would consider the publication as fact or opinion.  As this example demonstrates, defamation claims often turn on the specific circumstances of the cases—i.e., the nature of the statement, the parties involved, whether the truth of the statement can be proven, and how a reasonable person would perceive the statement.

How Has the Ninth Circuit Decision In Obsidian Financial Group, LLC v. Cox Changed Defamation Law?

In Obsidian Financial Group, LLC v. Cox, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a blogger enjoys the same free speech protections as a traditional print journalist.  Therefore, a blogger cannot be held liable for defamation unless she acted negligently.  The court added that it was “unworkable” to continue to distinguish between institutional speakers (i.e., traditional journalists) and other speakers (e.g., bloggers).  Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, explains that this decision is especially important in light of the growth of online news content.  More and more non-professionals publish information over the web.  It is becoming increasingly more difficult to distinguish who will enjoy the free speech protections the Constitution reserves for members of the press.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we are knowledgeable and experienced in a wide range of areas dealing with defamation and online publication.  To further discuss the legal implications of the freedom of press over the Internet you may contact us to speak with an attorney.

Published on:

In recent years, social media networks have proven to be an outlet for individuals to share personal views and opinions with the world.  However, Twitter’s new censorship laws could dramatically change whether individuals can actually express their viewpoints over this social media site.  Early in 2012, Twitter announced that it would allow for country-specific censorship laws.  Accordingly, Twitter content would be censored based on the country the individuals are located when reading content.  This will allow Twitter to comply with local government requests to remove or block content based on that country’s laws.   So, what censorship laws apply to the material on the web?  Interestingly, the law of the jurisdiction where material on the web is read, not written, governs the content.  This is the basis of Twitter’s new censorship laws.  They aim to cater to individual countries’ internet laws.

How Will This Affect American Laws and the Freedom of Expression?

The freedom of expression allows for a broad right for individuals to voice ideas and opinions in public without the fear of retaliation from opponents or the government.  Twitter argues that this new standard does not implicate the constitutional right freedom of expression.  Under Twitter’s new system, a tweet that is erased for breaking a law in one country may still be accessible in another country where the same legal standard does not apply.  Nonetheless, commentators point to how helpful Twitter has been during international crises (e.g., civil war in Syria).  Allowing governments to censor these posts may threaten lives.  This controversial policy deals with the conflicts of domestic and international laws.  Indeed, the fear is that the differences in laws will lead to high degrees of censorship in some regions.  Unfortunately, this will result in overall digression in the freedom of expression that societies have worked hard to protect.

How Will This Affect Freedom of Speech Rights In the International Community?

In fact, some foreign governments have expressed support for Twitter’s new policy.  Both Thailand and China have made statements praising the change.  Thailand emphasized that the country is looking for equal levels of cooperation from Google and Facebook.  Under Twitter’s new standard, individuals, companies, or the government could request that Twitter block a post.  Nonetheless, the same post could still be seen in other countries where it is not in violation of local laws.  In China, a local newspaper explained that it is impossible to have “boundless freedom” anywhere in response to the uproar in other countries over the new policy.  Interestingly, Twitter is entirely blocked in China.  The international concerns center on the reality that there are far more repressive nations around the world.  If social media networks allow nations to take advantage of censorship laws, then societies that are more repressive will use these laws to further limit individual rights within their jurisdiction.  Ultimately, the focus is on what comes next.  Namely, which website will allow for censorship next and to what extent will these policies continue to limit expression on the web.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we are knowledgeable and experienced in a wide range of areas dealing with international laws and regulations.  To further discuss freedom of expression over the Internet or related censorship standards you may contact us to speak with an attorney.

Published on:

Often times legal disputes can involve foreign entities or even foreign laws.  Where these disputes also deal with the United States, domestic laws will come into play.  In 1958, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which is also called the New York Convention.  It requires contracting state courts to give effect to agreements to arbitrate and to recognize arbitration awards.  Indeed, parties can enforce international arbitration awards in the United States through federal courts.  However, as Toho Towa, Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions demonstrates, state procedural laws can help parties collect international awards.

What Did the Court Hold in Toho Towa, Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions?

In this case, the Second District Court of Appeal applied an international arbitration award and allowed the claimant to enforce the award against a parent company that did not participate in the initial arbitration.  The claimant in this case was Toho Towa, Ltd., a Japanese corporation.  Morgan Creek International B.V., a Dutch entity, and Morgan Creek International Ltd., a Bermuda corporation were the original respondents.  The dispute involved an agreement among Morgan Creek International BC, the signatory; Morgan Creek International, Ltd., the guarantor; and Toho Towa, Ltd.  The agreement dealt with the right to distribute the movie “The Good Shepherd” in Japan.  The original arbitration award rewarded over $5 million to the claimant.  Toho Towa then petitioned a California state court to confirm the award.  According to California law, (Code of Civil Procedure § 1287.4) the international arbitration award effectively became a court judgment.  However, Toho Towa soon learned that the subsidiary companies did not have the resources to satisfy the judgment.  Once again, Toho Towa petitioned the California courts to add the parent company, Morgan Creek Productions, as a debtor on the judgment.  This meant that the parent company would now be liable for the full judgment.

When Can We Add Additional Parties to Arbitral Awards?

After a party successfully converts an arbitration award to a state court judgment, the regular rules of enforcing judgments apply.  In certain circumstances, a party can then petition the court to amend the judgment to add a new third party.  The courts will consider two issues to determine whether it is appropriate to add a party that did not participate in the original arbitration.  First, the new party must be shown to be the alter ego of the original party, such that it is appropriate to “pierce the corporate veil” and hold a parent company liable.  The concept of piercing the corporate veil is a legal standard that allows courts to hold officers or shareholders responsible for the rights or obligations of the corporation.  Typically, the “veil” protects officers and shareholders from personal liability.  Second, the party to be added must have controlled the initial arbitration, such that it had the opportunity to exercise its due process rights to protect itself.  In this case, Toho Towa was able to satisfy both prongs of this test.  Accordingly, the Second District Court of Appeal added the parent company, Morgan Creek Productions, to the judgment.  In the realm of international arbitration awards, this case demonstrates how state law can affect enforcement of international arbitration awards.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we are knowledgeable and experienced in a wide range of areas dealing with international law and arbitration.  To further discuss enforcement of international arbitration awards in the United States under both state and federal law, you may contact us to speak to an attorney today.

Published on:

The expansion of social media networks has helped connect people and ideas all over the world. However, it has also raised substantial privacy concerns as more people store personal information on the web. Congress has enacted legislation in an effort to circumvent the dangers associated with online networks–for example, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, and the Stored Communications Act. States have also passed their own legislation to help protect cyber activity within their jurisdiction. For example, California passed “Do Not Track” legislation in November 2013 requiring websites to disclose their tracking practices. These laws, along with several others, work to protect individuals, entities, and their related private information as they continue to operate and conduct business over the Internet. Recently, a federal court applied the Stored Communications Act and found that it is applicable to a user’s wall posts.

What Are The Provisions of the Stored Communications Act?

In 1986, Congress passed the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) which is codified under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.  The SCA aims to protect privacy interests implicated throughout electronic communications. Various court holdings have interpreted the SCA to apply to non-public electronic communications that take place over electronic communication services in an electronic storage medium. Violations of the SCA may carry potential criminal penalties, including serving time in prison. The penalties and liabilities will generally depend on the circumstances of the violation. The SCA does allow Internet service providers to share “non-content” with another person or entity. This includes log data and recipients’ email addresses. Still, this is a limited exception to the general rules and the SCA is still prohibited with sharing any information with a government entity. The government may compel Internet service providers to provide stored information. For electronically held communications, the government is required to have a probable cause and obtain a search warrant. For communications stored remotely, the government only needs a subpoena or a court order. Hence, remotely stored data enjoys a lower level of protection since it is easier to submit a subpoena rather than to obtain a search warrant.

What Online Activity Does the Stored Communications Act Cover?

In a 2013 case, Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Services Corp., a federal court found that private Facebook posts that are not available to the public, satisfy the requirements of the SCA and allow for a cause of action. The court explained that by allowing users to select their privacy preferences for their accounts, Facebook had effectively placed itself within SCA’s jurisdiction. For purposes of this law, when users choose to make their Facebook “walls” private, wall posts then become private electronic communications that are transmitted and stored with Facebook. However, in applying the SCA, if a third-party user has authority to access a private communication, there cannot be liability under the SCA. Indeed, in this case the access at issue was authorized, so the plaintiff did not qualify for a remedy.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we are knowledgeable and experienced in a wide range of areas dealing with Internet law. To further discuss Internet legislation and how it may effect you, contact us to speak with an attorney.

Published on:

In recent years, electronic spam has become a public nuisance. In response, several states, including, but not limited to, California, have enacted statutes to prevent electronic spam. As with most legislation that deals with the constantly-changing nature of the web, these statutes struggle to define the extent of their application while staying current with trends. Therefore, courts are charged with the responsibility of interpreting the intent of these laws.

What Are The Provisions of California’s Anti-Spam Statute?

In fact, California’s Business and Professions Code section 17529.5 prohibits any person or entity from sending commercial email advertisements, or spam, in three defined circumstances. First, spam is prohibited if an email advertisement uses a third-party domain without the third-party’s permission. Second, the statute prohibits email advertisements that use misrepresented information in the header. Finally, it is unlawful to use a subject line that is reasonably likely to mislead a recipient about the content or subject of the message. This section applies if the email is sent from California or if it is sent to a California email address. Accordingly, the reach of California’s legislation into other jurisdictions is also an issue for courts to interpret. Furthermore, a party bringing suit may recover both actual damages and liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are limited to $1,000 for each unlawful email and may go up to $1,000,000.

Who May Bring Suit Under This Statute?

The anti-spam statute allows the Attorney General, electronic mail service providers, and recipients of any such unsolicited commercial emails to file a lawsuit. The issue of what constitutes a “mail service provider” has recently been the subject of litigation. Indeed, companies often have several different sectors of operation and courts are careful in characterizing a company as a mail service provider. However, this characterization is important because it establishes standing. In order to bring a lawsuit, a party must have standing–i.e., the capacity to bring suit before a court. Specifically, in the 2013 case, Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., the federal district court of Maryland determined that plaintiff Beyond Systems, Inc. (“BSI”) was not a bona fide Internet Service Provider. Accordingly, the court found that BSI did not have standing to sue under section 17529.5. The court explained that both California’s anti-spam statute and Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act § 14-3001, et seq. require that a party bringing suit be a bona fide Internet Service Provider. Based on evidence from Kraft Foods, the court concluded that BSI did not meet this standard. Indeed, BSI spent most of its time in litigation with companies under anti-spam laws. It obtained three times more revenue from these cases than from actual Internet operations. In addition, BSI set up special networks to catch perpetrators violating anti-spam legislation. These were not characteristics common to service providers. The interpretation and application of the statute will largely determine how effective it will be towards preventing spam.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we are knowledgeable and experienced in a wide range of areas dealing with Internet laws. To further discuss California’s Internet legislation and how it may effect you, contact us to speak with an attorney.

Published on:

In general, both copyright and patent laws provide different levels of protection for computer software. Additionally, depending on the aspects of software that an owner wants to protect, these two areas of law will apply differently. Furthermore, securing a patent is a more rigorous process. However, a patent does provide a greater degree of protection. On the other hand, obtaining a copyright is less difficult, but it also provides a thinner veil of protection.

What Protection Does Copyright Law Provide For Computer Software?

The Copyright Act of 1976 is codified under 17 U.S.C. sections 101 et seq. Traditionally, copyright has been the common form of protection for computer software. However, copyrights only protect the expression of a work, and not its underlying idea. Copyrights have been instrumental in preventing software piracy and infringement of related works. The protection applies to software because the underlying computer code is similar to the types of writings the law protects. So, copyright holders can protect their software much like other literary works (e.g., books, scripts). Copyright protection essentially provides broad protections for software. It grants the typical copyright authority depending on the nature of the software. The courts have grouped software with other literary works and provided copyright protection accordingly. There also exist inconsistencies in court decisions applying the Copyright Act to software. This difficulty arises because the legal community often lacks the technical expertise necessary to properly classify software. For instance, where a judge cannot understand the program’s code, he or she cannot determine whether another infringing program’s code is substantially similar. It is necessary to establish substantial similarity to find copyright infringement. Therefore, the lack in technical background has led to unclear definitions as to what constitutes software copyright infringement.

What Protection Does Patent Law Provide For Computer Software?

There are various laws, regulations, policies, and procedures which apply to the patent process. For example, the Patent Act is codified under 35 U.S.C. sections 1 et seq. With growing cyber security concerns, patents are quickly becoming the preferred form of protection for software. A patent may provide another layer of protection for computer software. However, to achieve patent protection, software must qualify as: (1) patentable subject matter; and (2) nonobvious. Accordingly, patent protections only extend to new and useful processes. Therefore, while software theoretically qualifies for patent protection, it must demonstrate that it is also a new and useful process. Additionally, any such process cannot merely be a concept, but must also have real world value. Again, the lack of technical expertise in the legal field has led to some difficulty as the judicial branch struggles to apply legal standards to the technicalities.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we are knowledgeable and experienced in copyright and patent protection. If you are looking to secure protection for your software, you may contact us to speak to an attorney today.

Published on:

On September 23, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 568 (“SB 568″) into law, which requires social media sites to permit children to permanently erase online posts. These websites, including, but not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr, will have to provide options for users under the age of 18 to delete texts, photos, and videos. However, this option will not extend to content that a third party uploads regarding the minor. Hence, as California works to implement this new law, public debate circles around its effects and whether it will actually be helpful in protecting children online.

What Are The Provisions Of California’s New Digital Erase Law?

The law addresses websites that are directed to minors and have actual knowledge that a user is a minor. The websites include ones created specifically for the purpose of targeting minors rather than adults. These websites must provide a method for underage users to remove public posts about them. Alternatively, these users may ask the website to remove the content. However, if a minor received any compensation (i.e., marketing benefits, rewards) for a post, then the post is not subject to this law. In theory, websites may provide minimal compensation to minors to circumvent this law and avoid having to take down any posts. Furthermore, the law is ambiguous in some areas. For example, it is unclear whether minors are required to erase the content while they are still minors or whether they retain the right to erase any content they posted as minors. These details will need to be clarified to ensure proper enforcement.

Will SB 568 Really Be Effective?

In fact, State Senator Darrell Steinberg says this new law will allow children to seal a past of bad online postings that could pose potential obstacles for future opportunities. While lawmakers acknowledge the value of providing children the option to clear away the bad online decisions of their past, commentators point out that most social media sites already have delete options. The issue is that these problematic posts are quickly linked to other posts and websites. So, deleting the post from one website does not make it irretrievable from other sources. Additionally, often the harmful posts come from other people posting about the children, rather than the children posting about themselves. This law does not provide a way to erase these posts. There is also an issue of enforcement. Social media sites typically employ third parties to archive the information on the websites. Therefore, when any one of these sites allows children to delete past posts, they may not also be allowing them to delete the archived posts. Indeed, the websites may not even have the authority to compel the third party in charge of archiving to delete their records. Regardless, the law does not go into effect until January 1, 2015. Therefore, the California Legislature has some time to address the potential weaknesses.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we are knowledgeable and experienced in various fields dealing with online privacy and identity protection. If you have questions about the effects of this new legislation, you may contact us to speak with an attorney.

Published on:

In a recent case, Petronas v. Godaddy.com, the Ninth Circuit held that “contributory cybersquatting” was not a valid theory for relief. This case addressed the issue of whether the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) allows for secondary liability.

What Are the Facts?

Plaintiff, Petroliam Nasional Berhad (aka “Petronas”) is a Malaysian government-owned entity. Petronas holds the American trademark “PETRONAS.” The entity also owns the Petronas Towers in Malaysia. Defendant, Godaddy.com, is the world’s largest domain name registrar. The case revolves around a third party who registered the domain names petronastower.net and petronastowers.net in 2003. In 2007, the party began using Godaddy’s domain forwarding services to direct the domain names to an adult website. Petronas sued Godaddy for cybersquatting and contributory cybersquatting. In general, cybersquatting is the act of holding a trademark hostage in the form of a domain name and forcing the trademark owner to negotiate an unreasonable price for the domain. Although Godaddy did investigate the alleged cybersquatting, ultimately, they did not take any action.

Congress passed the ACPA, which is codified under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, to provide for civil liability for cybersquatting where people or entities register or use domain names in bad faith, with an intent to profit from another’s trademark. Petronas argued that Congress intended for the ACPA to include a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting. However, the Ninth Circuit did not agree with this argument. The court explained that a plain reading of the text of the ACPA showed that it did not provide for this type of remedy. Furthermore, the court reasoned that since secondary liability is a distinct remedy, it could not imply the statute contained it unless expressly provided. Finally, the court held that it was not within the goals of the statute to allow suits against neutral domain name registrars for contributory liability. Indeed, this would force the registrars to begin inquiring into their customer’s intent to determine whether bad faith existed, which is an unreasonable burden.

What Is Secondary Liability?

A party can be liable to another party for damages based on either primary or secondary liability. Under the secondary liability theory, or indirect infringement, a party has not committed the wrongful act. Instead, liability rests on material contributions to the wrongful act. Secondary liability can be vicarious or contributory. Vicarious liability holds parties responsible who profit from infringement and are in a position to prevent the wrongful act. On the other hand, under the theory of contributory liability parties who provide for or facilitate the infringement can be liable to the harmed party.

In this case, Petronas attempted to argue that Godaddy was contributorially liable for allowing a third-party to register a domain name that infringed on its trademark. Central to this argument would have been whether Godaddy knew the domain name was infringing, whether Godaddy did anything to help the third-party register and use the address, and whether Godaddy was in a position to have stopped any infringement. Ultimately, the court concluded that it was not Godaddy’s burden to police domain name and search for bad intent.

At our law firm, we provide guidance and legal expertise for issues dealing with the management and protection of trademark rights. If you are involved in a trademark infringement dispute, you may contact us to discuss the legal remedies.

Published on:

In general, lawsuits involve harmed parties and controversial facts. However, in some cases, the facts are especially sensitive, posing serious detrimental consequences for one or more parties. This threat exists regardless of how the court decides the case. These cases include matters involving, among others, child victims, sexual abuse, and hate crimes. To help protect privacy interests, courts will sometimes allow a party to appear anonymously under a pseudonym–for example, John Doe or Jane Doe.

What Is the Basis of A Party’s Right to Anonymity in Court Proceedings?

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), parties to a lawsuit are required to include their names in their court filings. To determine whether the option to file anonymously is appropriate, courts will balance the related competing interests between the parties. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals first introduced this test in Doe v. Stegall, a case involving prayer in public schools. The court explained that the issue of party anonymity required a balancing of interests in full disclosure against the party’s right to privacy. The courts apply this test on a case-by-case basis. Although, there are no firm factors to help guide this analysis, a review of the different policy interests will help reach a conclusion. However, allowing a party to file a case anonymously violates two fundamental principles of the judicial process. First, an accused party has a constitutional right to confront the accuser. This is a principle contained in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to face and question an accuser. Second, central to the American judicial system is the right of the public to have access to court documents. Where parties remain anonymous, the public is deprived of its right to access court documents.

How Have Courts Applied the Stegall Balancing Test In Recent Cases?

In Doe v. Lally, the District Court of Maryland explained that anonymity is almost always appropriate where a party is facing threat of physical harm. In Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corporation, the Ninth Circuit allowed garment workers to anonymously file an action against their employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The workers argued that if they revealed their identities in the case they would lose their jobs and face deportation, arrests, and imprisonment. The court held that where parties demonstrate that they have “objectively reasonable fear of extraordinarily severe retaliation” anonymity is appropriate. Similarly, in Roe v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, the Eleventh Circuit held that cases dealing with abortion carried a presumption that anonymity was appropriate. The court explained that anonymity was warranted given the intimate and delicate sets of facts. While most courts are sensitive to facts that allow for anonymity, in some instances courts will strictly apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), and require parties to identify themselves in their pleadings.

At our law firm, we provide guidance and legal expertise to manage and protect your privacy. If you are involved in a matter dealing with delicate and private circumstances, you may contact us to discuss the options.