backOn August 2, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a request from an anonymous plaintiff to proceed with his lawsuit against the PCAOB under a pseudonym. The plaintiff, an auditor against whom the PCAOB had instituted disciplinary proceedings for failure to cooperate with a Board investigation, alleged that the PCAOB’s funding, appointments, and disciplinary processes violate the Constitution.
Applying a five-factor balancing test, the court determined that plaintiff failed to make the detailed showing required to overcome the presumption in favor of disclosing his identity. The court found, among other things, that disclosure of plaintiff’s identity would not reveal any sensitive or highly personal information and that plaintiff’s challenge was not grounded in his specific circumstances or limited to individualized relief. The court also rejected as pure speculation plaintiff’s argument that requiring him to reveal his identity would have a chilling effect deterring future litigants from suing the Board. The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that disclosure of his identity would violate the statutory confidentiality provisions under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, stating that the statute did not mandate or encourage confidentiality in this lawsuit. The court gave plaintiff fourteen days to decide whether to pursue the matter under his real name.
The case is John Doe v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, No. 1:24-cv-00780-UNA (D.D.C. Aug. 2, 2024). Plaintiff is represented by New Civil Liberties Alliance and Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP. The PCAOB is represented by Munger Tolles & Olson LLP and MoloLamken LLP. A copy of the opinion can be found here.