1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

JOHN DOE, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

DONALD J. TRUMP, ET AL., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

Case No. 1:20-CV-2531-SJC 

UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER A PSEUDONYM 

John Doe, on behalf of himself and the purported class members, seeks an order for leave 

to proceed under a pseudonym in this case. His motion should be denied because he has not 

carried his burden to show that “exceptional circumstances” exist “outweigh[ing] both the public 

policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from 

anonymity.” Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 377 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Doe v. City of 

Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2004); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc., 

112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997)). 

The Seventh Circuit has “repeatedly voiced [its] disfavor of parties proceeding 

anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open 

proceedings and to know who is using court facilities and procedures funded by public taxes.” 

Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d at 377; see also City of Chicago, 360 F.3d at 669 (“The 

concealment of a party’s name impedes public access to the facts of the case, which include the 

parties’ identity.”). In reviewing Doe’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym, the Court “has an 

independent duty to determine whether exceptional circumstances justify such a departure from 

the normal method of proceeding in federal courts.” Blue Cross, 112 F.3d at 872. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 39 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:343
2 

Doe contends “exceptional circumstances” support his motion because “Plaintiff and the 

Putative Class are vulnerable parties and are forced to proceed anonymously as a result of the 

immigration status of their respective spouses, who include in many instances, but are not limited 

to, undocumented immigrants.” Dkt. 36 at 2. In support of his allegations, Doe cites a series of 

publications discussing issues generally related to immigration but does not contend that any of 

these articles relate to him. His motion is also devoid of any evidence related to his particular 

circumstances. Thus, he has not met his burden to establish any protectable privacy interest 

warranting departure from the usual requirement that parties identify themselves. 

The other pending class actions challenging section 6428 further undercut Doe’s motion. 

In both Amador v. Mnuchin, 1:20-cv-01102 (D. Md.), and Uzoegwu v. Mnuchin, 1:20-cv-03264 

(S.D.N.Y.), the named plaintiffs have identified themselves. In R.V. et al v. Mnuchin, 8:20-cv01148 (D. Md.), the named plaintiffs are proceeding pseudonymously in accord with the judicial 

protection traditionally given to minors, as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. See 

Blue Cross, 112 F.3d at 872 (“fictitious names are allowed when necessary to protect the privacy 

of children, rape victims, and other particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses”). It is unclear 

why Doe requires anonymity when the named plaintiffs in Amador and Uzoegwu, who would all 

appear to be part of the purported class in this case, do not. And, unlike R.V., Doe is not a minor. 

Further, the United States would be prejudiced if Doe is permitted to proceed 

anonymously. Doe alleges that he and the purported class members are eligible individuals who 

would otherwise be entitled to a credit under section 6428 but for the citizenship of their spouses. 

See Dkt. 20, ¶¶26-28. Doe contends the United States will not be prejudiced if his motion is 

granted because “the Internal Revenue Service is certainly aware of Plaintiff and the Putative 

Class’ identities as taxpayer identification information is already in the possession of the IRS.” 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 39 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:344
3 

Dkt. 36 at 5 (citation omitted). Although Doe has brought this case as a class action, he is the 

only current plaintiff in this case because no class has been certified. Because the United States 

does not know his identity, it cannot confirm his allegations that he is an eligible individual and 

an adequate representative of the proposed class. The fact that the Internal Revenue Service has 

records regarding all taxpayers does not mean it can identify Doe’s records or evaluate whether 

he can fairly and adequately represent the putative class members. 

In the event that the Court is inclined to grant Doe’s motion, Doe should be required to 

disclose his identity to the United States under a protective order so that the United States can 

determine whether he is an eligible individual as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 6428. Specifically, the 

United States needs to know his Social Security Number, his spouse’s Individual Taxpayer 

Identification Number, his 2019 income, and whether he filed his 2018 and 2019 tax returns. If 

Doe filed his 2018 and 2019 tax returns, the United States also would need copies of those 

returns. Without this information, the United States cannot adequately defend this case because 

it unclear whether Doe has standing to bring his claims or is an adequate class representation. 

Dated: June 29, 2020 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 RICHARD E. ZUCKERMAN 

 Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

 

/s/ Jordan A. Konig 

 JORDAN A. KONIG 

 CHRISTOPHER J. WILLIAMSON 

 Trial Attorneys, Tax Division 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

 P.O. Box 55, Ben Franklin Station 

 Washington, D.C. 20044 

 Tel.: (202) 305-7917 / Fax: (202) 514-5238 

 Jordan.A.Konig@usdoj.gov 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 39 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:345
4 

Certificate of Service 

 I certify that on June 29, 2020, a copy of the foregoing United States’ Memorandum in 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym was filed electronically. Notice 

of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties 

indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s 

system. 

/s/ Jordan A. Konig 

 Jordan A. Konig 

 Trial Attorney 

 U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 39 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:346