Third Circuit Addresses the Continued Obligation to Maintain Confidentiality of Minor Party in Litigation After They Reach Majority

In a published order in Ricketts as parent of L.G. v. Titusville Area Sch. Dist., No. 24-2569 (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2025) (per curiam), the Third Circuit offers guidance about what happens to the confidentiality of a federal litigant who is a minor once they reach age 18.

“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and our Local Rules mandate that the names of all minor children be redacted or replaced by initials in all documents filed with the court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5); Third Circuit L.A.R. 113.12(a)(2), and failure to comply with such rules may be grounds for sanctions. Fed. R. App. P. 46(c).”

For adult litigants, though, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) requires that parties proceed under their own names unless the court grants leave to use a pseudonym. Moreover, the presumption of confidentiality of filings flips, and the adult litigant must establish good cause to keep their identity under seal.

“Litigation, however, can be a lengthy ordeal, so it is not uncommon for a minor
child to reach adulthood before a case has fully resolved. That occurred here when L.G.— a minor victim of sexual abuse—turned eighteen in between the filing of the complaint and the District Court’s order granting summary judgment. Counsel, uncertain as to their obligations in this scenario, included L.G.’s unredacted name in certain filings before the District Court and before us on appeal.”

When the panel discovered the unredacted name in the appellate record, it placed those records under seal and issued a rule show cause why sanctions were not warranted. Ultimately, due to a lack of clarity about the standards, the panel elects not to levy sanctions. It uses the occasion of this published order to explain how to handle situations where the litigant ages out of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3).

“When L.G. turned 18 during the course of litigation, however, that rule no longer applied on a prospective basis. At that point, counsel could have moved to continue to allow L.G. to proceed anonymously by demonstrating that doing so would be necessary to prevent serious harm . . . . Depending on the nature and circumstances of the case, minors who reach adulthood during the course of litigation may be able to justify such treatment as a result of their continuing interests in avoiding the embarrassment, stigma, and potential for retaliation that can attend public disclosure . . . . Those criteria would seem to weigh heavily on the side of redaction in the case of a minor victim of sexual assault, but no such motion was filed, so counsel was not required by Rule 5.2 or by order to anonymize submissions after L.G. turned 18.”

Thus, counsel to litigants reaching an eighteenth birthday are advised to file a motion for a protective order to proceed under a pseudonym and seal documents in advance. But documents filed during the litigant’s minority continue to be covered by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3).