A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l y thator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det er m i nati on of th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t ati on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t er m s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay31,2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

A A R O N R A IS E R , a ls o k n o w n a s T .G .,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. CH UR CH OF J E S US CH RI S T OF L AT T E R- DAY S AI NT S ; BR I GHAM YOUNG UNI VE RS I T Y,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 4120 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 4 - CV- 8 9 6 - TC)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , B RI S CO E , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ar on R ai s er , a pl ai nt i ff a ppeari ng pr o s e, br i ngs thi s i nt er l ocut or yappea l ch all en g ing d istri ct co u rto rde rs (1) d en y ing h is m o ti o n to p roc ee d u n d er aA s not ed i n R ai s erI , thi s courthas j ur i s di cti on overan i nt erl ocut or yor der 1 deny i ng a mot i on t o pr ocee d undera ps eudony m underthe col l at er al or der d o c tr in e . R ai s er , 127 F. A pp’ x at410 ( ci t i ng D oes I T hru X X I I I v. A dvance d T exti l e C orp. , 214 F. 3d 1058, 1066 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ; J ames v. J acobs on, 6 F. 3d 233, 237- 38 ( 4th C i r . 1993) ; S. M ethodi s tU ni v. A s s ’ n of W om en Law Student s v. W y n n e & Jaffe , 5 9 9 F . 2 d 7 0 7 , 7 1 2 (5th C ir . 1 9 7 9 )). -2- ps eudony m and ( 2) l i m i t i ng pr etr i al di s covery . W e exe r ci s e ourj ur i s di cti on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and AF F I RM i n partand D I SM I SS in p a rt. I n 2002, R ai s erfi l ed a l aw s ui tagai ns tB r i gham Y oung U ni ver s i ty( “B Y U ”) a n d th e Ci ty o fP r o v o , Ut a h , a l l e g i n g th a td u r i n g h i s i n t e r a c t i o n s wi th BY U s e c u ri ty an d th e P ro v o P o lic e D e p a rt m e n t h is c iv il r ig h ts w e re v io la te d . (“R aiser I”). I n it s M o ti o n to D ism iss, B Y U m ad e re fe ren ce to R aiser’s ps y chi atr i c hi s t or y . R ai s erm oved t o s ealthe r ecor d and moved t o pr ocee d under a ps eudony m . B oth of thos e mot i ons w er e deni ed. R ai s erappea l ed onl ythe d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o fh i s mo t i o n t o p r o c e e d u s i n g a p s e u d o n y m, a n d we affi r m ed, hol di ng thatR ai s erhad notdemonstr at ed exc epti onal ci r cumst ance s justi fy ing h is use o f a p seu d o n y m . R aiser v . B ri g h am Y o u n g U n iv., 1 2 7 F . A p p ’x 4 0 9 , 4 1 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (un p u b li sh ed ). 1 In 2 0 0 4 , R a ise r, n o w a c tin g u n d e r th e p se u d o n y m T .G ., filed a c iv il c o m p lain t ag a in st b o th B Y U a n d T h e C h u rc h o fJe su s C h rist o fL a tter- D a yS a in ts (th e “ C h u rc h ” ) a lleg in g c laim s b a se d o n B Y U ’s r e fe re n c e to h is m e n tal h isto ry in i t s m ot i on dur i ng the 2002 l i t i gati on. ( “R ai s erI I ”) . C ont empora neous l y , he fi l ed-3-

a mot i on forper m i s s i on t o pr ocee d i n thi s cas e undera ps eudony m . T he di s tr i ct cou rtden i ed the m oti on , and t w o m oti on s for r econ si derat i on . R ai serapp eal s. W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f a m o ti o n to p roc ee d u n d er a ps eudony m forabus e of di s cr eti on. M . M . v. Z avar as , 139 F. 3d 798, 802 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). A s w e h a v e n o ted p re v io u sly , the re is a su b sta n tial b e n e fit t o m a in tain in g o p e n c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s, a n d th u s th e p u b lic h a s a n in ter e st in know i ng the i denti ty of l i t i gant s . Fem edee rv. H aun, 227 F. 3d 1244, 1246 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the F e d e ra l R u les o fC iv il P ro c e d u re m a n d a te th a t th e re a l n a m e s o fa ll r e a l p a rt ie s in in te re s t m u s t b e u s e d in c o m p la in ts . S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 0 (a ) a n d 1 7 (a ). N onethel es s , even though ther e i s no expl i ci tcongr es s i onal gr antof a ri ght o fa p a rtyto p ro c e e d a n o n y m o u sly , w e h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t th e re is a lso a p u b lic benefi ti n al l ow i ng s om e l i t i gant s t o pr ocee d anony m ous l y . Fem edee r , 227 F. 3d at1246. O urcas e l aw has thus r ecogni zed thati n cert ai n “exc epti onal ci r cumst ance s ” the nee d foranony m i tyout w ei ghs the pr es um pt i on i n favorof open courtpr ocee di ngs . I d. E xcepti onal ci r cumst ance s exi s ti f the ca s e i nvol ves m att er s of a hi ghl y s ens i t i ve and pe r s onal natur e, r ealdangerof phy s i calhar m , or w h ere the injuryli ti g ated ag ains t w o u ld b e inc u rred as a resu lto f th e d iscl o su re o fth e R a is e r’ s id e n tity.” Id . (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). I n cas es w her e the s ens i t i ve i nfor m ati on has al r eadybeen di s cl os ed dur i ng a p a rty ’s p rio r liti g a tio n u n d e r its re a l n a m e , the so c ial in ter e st in a llo w in g a p a rtyR ai s erar gues thatthi s cas e i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om hi s pr i orpr ocee di ngs 2 beca us e i f w e deni ed hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d undera ps eudony m he w oul d i ncur th e v e ry inju ry a g a in s t w h ic h h e is litig a tin g . W e reje c t th is a rg u m e n t. Pr eventi ng di s cl os ur e of hi s i denti tyi s notthe bas i s of R ai s er ’ s l aw s ui t . I ns t ead, h e s e e k s m o n e ta ry c o m p e n s a tio n fo r a d is c lo s u re th a t h a s a lr e a d yo c c u rr e d . -4- t o pr ocee d anony m ous l y i s l i m i t ed. See M . M . v. W . Z avar as , 139 F. 3d 798, 802 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . Pl aci ng thi s m att eri n cont ext , the i s s ue br oughtt o us forour cons i der ati on has been pr evi ous l ycons i der ed and rul ed upon i n R ai s erI . I n the ear l i ercas e, s ubs t anti al l y s i m i l aras s ert i ons r egar di ng the us e of aps eudony m had b e e n ra ise d to a p a n e l o fth is c o u rt, an d d e n ied . T h e c o n se q u e n c e o fth a t d e n ial is thatR ai s er ’ s name r emai ned i n the publ i c domai n i n connec t i on w i th the litig a tio n . T o p a ra p h ra se th e p re se n t situ a tio n , R a ise r’s re q u e st is e q u iv a len t to as ki ng us t o putj ack ba ck i n the box, thati s , t o col l at er al l yr evi ew a pr evi ous deci s i on of thi s court . T hatw e ca nnotdo. R ai s erhas notdemonstr at ed s uffi ci ent

“ e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s” ju stify in g h is u se o fa p se u d o n y m in th is pr ocee di ng. 2 R ai s eral s o ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr eti on bydeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d us i ng a ps eudony m beca us e ( 1) the defendant s ’ r es pons es t o hi s m ot i on w er e unti m el y , and ( 2) he w as notaffor ded anyoppor tuni tyt o fi l e a r epl y underl ocal rul e D U C i vR 7- 1( b) ( 3) t o thos e r es pons es befor e hi s m ot i on w as d e n ied . A lth o u g h R a ise r is c o rre c t th a t h e c o u ld file a re p ly , h e c o u ld d o so o n ly i f the r epl y m emora ndum i s “l i m i t ed t o r ebutt al of m att er s r ai s ed i n the m em orandu m op po si ng the m oti on . ” A repl ym ay no tproperl ybe u sed t o rai se-5-

n e w a rg u m e n ts in su p p o rt o fa p a rty ’s p o sitio n . H a v in g fa iled to d e m o n stra te in hi s i ni t i al br i ef thathi s cas e i s s uffi ci ent l y“exc epti onal , ” di s pos i t i on of thi s i s s ue is n o t r e le v a n t o n a p p e a l. R ai s er ’ s s econd i s s ue on appe al , thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n ent er i ng a p re-trial d isco v ery o rde r l im iting b o th the sco p e o f R aiser’s w ri tt en d isco v ery r eques t s and the numberand mannerof hi s w i t nes s depos i t i ons , i s di s m i s s ed. Pr etr i al di s covery or der s ar e gene r al l ynon- fi nal , i nt er l ocut or yor der s thatm ay notbe appe al ed unti l a fi nal or deri s ent er ed i n the pr ocee di ng. See FT C v. Al a s k a La n d Le a s i n g , I n c . , 7 7 8 F . 2 d 5 7 7 , 5 7 8 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 8 5 ) ( c i t i n g 2 8 U. S . C. § 1292) . B eca us e exc epti on t o thatrul e i s notpr es ent , thi s courtl acks ju ri s d ic tio n to a d d re s s th e is s u e . R ai ser ’s m oti on t o p roceed in form a pau peri s i s GR ANTED . T he di s tr i ct co u rt ’s A p ri l 22 , 2 0 0 5 o rde r de n y ing R aiser’s m o ti o n to p roc ee d u n d er a pseud on y m i s AFF I RM ED . R ai s er ’ s appea l of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s A pr i l 26, 2005 order i s DI S M I S S ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge