From at the moment’s resolution by Choose Jeannette Vargas (S.D.N.Y.) in Haggai v. Kiswani:
Plaintiffs … filed this go well with towards Nerdeen Kiswani, individually and because the consultant of Inside Our Lifetime-United For Palestine, Maryam Alwan, individually and because the consultant of Columbia College students For Justice In Palestine, Cameron Jones, individually and because the consultant of Columbia-Barnard Jewish Voice For Peace, and Mahmoud Khalil, individually and because the consultant of Columbia College Apartheid Divest, Columbia College students For Justice In Palestine, and Columbia-Barnard Jewish Voice For Peace, (“Defendants”) below the Antiterrorism Act (“ATA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d), and the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350….
Plaintiffs on this motion are alleged victims of Hamas, a terrorist group with the objective of destroying the State of Israel. The catalyst of this motion are the terrorist assaults of October 7, 2023, when Hamas led an incursion into Southern Israel and murdered greater than 1,200 individuals. Along with the lives misplaced, Hamas took greater than 200 hostages again to Gaza. On this immediate motion, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants on this case “are Hamas’ propaganda arm in New York Metropolis and on the Columbia College campus.” Plaintiffs additional allege that Defendants’ acts performed “in furtherance of their objectives to help Hamas have included terrorizing and assaulting Jewish college students, unlawfully taking on and damaging public and college property on Columbia’s campus, and bodily assaulting Columbia College staff.” …
Below Rule 10(a) of the Federal Guidelines of Civil Process, a “grievance should identify all of the events.” This requirement “serves the important function of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and due to this fact can’t be put aside flippantly.” A district courtroom has discretion to grant an exception to the “basic requirement of disclosure of the names of events” to permit a celebration to proceed below a pseudonym…. “[P]seudonyms are the exception and never the rule, and with a purpose to obtain the protections of anonymity, a celebration should make a case rebutting that presumption.” …
The Movants, as described earlier, embrace a dad or mum of a present hostage from October 7, reservists within the IDF, and an IDF veteran who’s the member of the family of a soldier serving within the IDF. It’s affordable that the disclosure of the Movants’ identities may probably expose the Movants to extreme harassment—or worse ….
Movants allege that revealing the identities of James Poe and Leo Poe would “place Leo Poe within the gravest bodily hazard.” Leo Poe is without doubt one of the hostages who was kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and has been held in Gaza ever since. James Poe and Leo Poe have filed this go well with towards Defendants, whom they allege are “Hamas’ shut allies in the USA.”
Whereas the Court docket makes no judgment on the deserves of those allegations, the Court docket does acknowledge the extremely delicate nature of this continuing. Hamas is chargeable for the killing of greater than 1,200 individuals on October 7, 2023, and the kidnapping of greater than 200 others. It’s believable that Hamas may homicide Leo Poe in response to this motion which his father, James Poe, brings. Erring on the facet of warning, this Court docket finds it acceptable to weigh this issue closely in favor of anonymity as to James Poe and Leo Poe.
For related causes, this Court docket finds that these components additionally weigh closely in favor of John Doe, Richard Roe and Jane Moe continuing below pseudonyms. “Doe, Roe, and Moe are Jewish college students at Columbia College and present and former IDF troopers who’ve fought or have kin who’re combating Hamas [who] fairly concern retaliation and reputational harms if they’re required to disclose their identities.” Doe, Roe, and Moe allege that they’ve every been “personally subjected to antisemitic harassment prompted by Defendants’ conduct.”
Examples of alleged antisemitic harassment skilled by Movants embrace a classmate approaching Roe, stating that they “declare[] their assist for Hamas as a ‘freedom fighter’ group,” and telling Roe that “his household and buddies stay on stolen land.” One other instance alleged is that “a scholar accosted Roe as he was standing at a pro-Israel desk on the campus golf equipment truthful, put pro-Hamas stickers on their supplies, pushed the desk, and ripped up the sign-up papers.”
As in Doe v. Style Inst. of tech. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2025), the place a Jewish scholar was permitted to proceed below a pseudonym to stop her from being subjected to additional violent threats associated to the Israel-Palestine battle, the disclosure of Doe, Roe, and Moe’s identities may topic them to additional threats and harassment….
As soon as Defendants seem on this litigation, nonetheless, they’ll file a movement to revisit this challenge….
Notice, although, that the Doe v. Style Inst. of tech. resolution that the courtroom cited has been reversed by the identical choose who issued it; an excerpt from that Apr. 3 decision:
Plaintiff argues that two potential harms would come up from disclosing her id. First, she argues that disclosure would lead to retaliatory bodily hurt, provided that she has already been topic to violent threats on-line. And second, Plaintiff argues that disclosure would irreparably harm her repute. Movement at 5-8 (contending that there’s a “actual chance that Plaintiff may very well be completely stigmatized by these allegations” and that the allegations “would threaten her capability to safe future employment, pursue tutorial alternatives, and even interact in private relationships”).
In her Amended Grievance, Plaintiff alleges that she was topic to violent on-line threats when her image was posted on social media after she refused to simply accept a flier that invited college students to signal a petition “declare[ing] that the Jews of Israel are colonizers that interact in ethnic cleaning and commit genocide in Gaza.” This alleged historical past of prior motion directed at Plaintiff raises some threat of hurt to her from third events. The chance that Plaintiff could be stigmatized by her identify being disclosed, nonetheless, is “inadequate to proceed anonymously.” Furthermore, “Plaintiff’s curiosity in anonymity because of the threat of hurt is just not one-sided; somewhat, it have to be balanced towards the corresponding curiosity that Defendant[ ] face[s] having been publicly named in Plaintiff’s go well with.” Right here, if Plaintiff have been to proceed below a pseudonym, FIT “could be required to defend [itself] publicly whereas [P]laintiff may make her accusations from behind a cloak of anonymity.”
[The risk of retaliation] thus weigh[s] solely barely in favor of anonymity….
[Moreover, among other things, g]iven that there’s a demonstrated public curiosity in circumstances surrounding alleged disparate remedy of Jewish college students at schools and that the info on the core of this case contain “explicit motion and incidents” somewhat than “summary challenges to public insurance policies,” [the public’s interest in the litigation] weigh[s] towards permitting Plaintiff to proceed anonymously….
Whereas [some] components tilt in favor of Plaintiff … [other] issues … weigh towards Plaintiff. Reviewing [all the various] components of their totality, the Court docket finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of rebutting the robust presumption that she should proceed below her personal identify.
For different circumstances coping with requests for pseudonymity in claims alleging anti-Semitic conduct, see the posts Pro-Israel Jewish Students Suing Haverford College for Hostile Environment Harassment Can Proceed Pseudonymously and No Pseudonymity for Israeli Suing Intel Over Layoff Allegedly Prompted by Complaints Over Boss’s Allegedly Pro-Hamas Statements. For extra on the inconsistency within the big selection of pseudonymity circumstances, see The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation.
