Andrew Tate Case: Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym
A federal court order allows defendants in a lawsuit involving Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate to proceed under pseudonyms due to safety concerns.
If the PDF does not display in your browser, download the original file.
Read with context. This preserved document reflects its source and publication date. Check the linked source context page for corrections, replacements, or later developments.
About this document
A plain-language guide to the contents and context of this specific public document.
Background of the Case
Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate are plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Jane Doe and other defendants. The Tates are facing criminal charges in Romania related to human trafficking. The defendants are connected to the Romanian investigation, including alleged victims and a U.S. Marine who reported human trafficking. The Tates have filed claims such as defamation and false imprisonment against the defendants.
Supported by PDF page 1Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym
The defendants requested to proceed under pseudonyms and for partial sealing of the case, citing safety concerns. They argued that the Tates, who have millions of online followers, have publicized the defendants' identities, leading to online harassment and threats. The court deferred ruling on the protective order but addressed the pseudonym request.
Supported by PDF pages 1, 2Legal Standards for Anonymity
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires parties to be named in court proceedings, but exceptions exist if privacy concerns outweigh the presumption of openness. The Eleventh Circuit considers factors such as risk of physical harm, exposure of intimate information, and threats to fairness. The court found the risk of physical harm to the defendants justified anonymity.
Supported by PDF pages 2, 3Evidence of Threats and Harassment
The defendants provided evidence of online threats, including messages threatening physical harm and death. They also submitted sworn affidavits stating that strangers had contacted their family and friends. The court concluded that the harassment posed a significant risk to the defendants' safety.
Supported by PDF pages 3, 4Court's Ruling
The court granted the defendants' motion to proceed under pseudonyms, ordering the case filings to reflect their anonymity as Jane Doe, John Doe, June Doe, Mary Doe, and Liam Doe. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to file a surresponse to the defendants' reply.
Supported by PDF page 4Document record
- Document type
- Court order
- Category
- Civil
- Publication date
- 2023-09-20
- Court or office
- Not stated by source
- Case number
- 9:23-cv-81150
- Collected
- 2026-11-13
- Original filename
- gov.uscourts.flsd.652402.46.0.pdf
Source & integrity
This copy is preserved from the linked source record. The fingerprint below lets you verify that the bytes have not changed.
46c6619979852dc396cb8b72bb938cde2e3ace50aa5c8dc0518240efa88d5ba5ShareIt.onl is an independent public-document index and is not affiliated with CourtListener or any court. Documents are published here only after source and file-integrity review. Always use the linked source record for authoritative context and later updates.