James Synnott v. Paul Burgermeister, et al.

It is bedrock law that the federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise” the jurisdiction they possess. Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143, 150 (2015). Lack of adherence to that obligation has plagued this petitioner through state and federal courts adversely impacting petitioner, petitioner’s child, petitioner’s family, and those similarly situated in compounding fashion. This Court, while recognizing the use of pseudonyms in Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988), Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), et cetera, has yet to give clear directions as to its proper applications— pertinently given the current age of online court records, search engines, and children’s privacy. This Court has recognized privacy rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Inter alia, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5 and 17; statutes such as 18 U.S.C. §3509(d); and Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (1998) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506 (2003)) (restricting collection, use, and disclosure of children’s personal information by websites); and juvenile offender protections aim to safeguard children’s privacy. Therefore, the questions presented are: • Whether using pseudonyms for parents and children—incases involving children, especially with sensitive information—is appropriate and outweighs the presumption of public right of access, as held by the Second, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits, or is possible and must be considered and weighed fully, including denial’s adverse effect on meritorious