Y.S. v. John Doe, et al.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Judge Starnella concluded that pseudonymity is not warranted in this case because the record shows that the individuals that threatened Plaintiff already know his name and address, and that he has not faced 1 In his argument that Judge Starnella mischaracterized his request as a fishing expedition, Plaintiff cites to hallucinated cases and misattrib- utes conclusions that cannot be found in real cases. He cites a nonex- istent case, Diamond Fortress Techs., Inc. v. EverID, Inc., No. 19-337- LPS, 2022 WL 2239826, at *3–4 (D. Del. June 22, 2022), and gives the opposite holding of another case, Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-90, No. C11-03825 HRL, 2012 WL 1094653, *2–*3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012). This is a sufficient alternative ground for overruling his objec- tions. See Doc. 90 at 21:18–20 (“I am warning you that if you continue to miscite cases and misstate cases, I will likely recommend that the district judge impose filing restrictions on you.”). Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 115 filed 06/04/26 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 5 - 5 - any further threats. Plaintiff correctly notes that repeated threats are not strictly necessary, but he has not shown that Judge Starnella based her conclusions on an incorrect standard or incorrect information.

Authorities cited in the passage: Inc. v. EverID · Inc. v. Does 1-90, No. C11-03825 HRL, 2012 WL 1094653, *2–*3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012)