2026-cv-04594

COMPLAINT (redacted) filed by John Doe; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25020759.

Exhibit Schedule A (redacted)

Exhibit A (redacted)

(Exhibit B (redacted))

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe

Exhibit Schedule A

Exhibit A

(Exhibit B)

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff John Doe by Longhao Wang

MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe for leave to file under seal

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Laura K. McNally. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3).

CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion [5] to proceed under seal is denied. The court notes that plaintiff has also, without permission, filed pseudonymously--the court construes that as a request to proceed pseudonymously and denies that request for the reasons that follow. Plaintiff argues it ought to be able to proceed under seal and via a pseudonym by asserting, in conclusory fashion, that if defendants learned of the proceedings they might destroy relevant documents and hide or transfer their assets. [5] at 2. Such conclusory assertions, however, do not justify veiled proceedings. Generally speaking, good cause is required to seal court filings which are otherwise part of the public record. Cf. Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999). Otherwise, the "general rule is that the record of a judicial proceeding is public." Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 927 (2002). That is because proceeding behind a veil stands in tension with "the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings." Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 377 (7th Cir. 2016). Moreover, in the case of pseudonymity or a party who wishes to seal the record from their opponent, there are additional harms as veiled proceedings force the opponent to fight without a full record. See id (noting the "prejudice" to an opposing party). Thus, pseudonymous proceedings or proceedings where pertinent information is hidden from one side are only permitted in "exceptional circumstances" such as the need to "protect[] the identities of children, rape victims, and other particularly vulnerable parties." See id. at 375 (quotation omitted). In this case, plaintiff has merely asserted that defendants might destroy documents or shield their assets. But such a risk is present in every case. And plaintiff has made no effort to distinguish its case from any other. See generally XYZ Corp. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, No. 21-CV-06471, 2022 WL 180151 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022). There is thus no reason to depart from the "general rule" of open proceedings. And there certainly has not been a showing of "exceptional circumstances." Thus, sealed or pseudonymous proceedings are unjustified. By 5/15/2026 plaintiff shall file all materials publicly, and [1] and [2] are stricken. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or comply with the court's orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Mailed notice.