The UC Regents are opposing a bid by nine of 35 plaintiffs to use pseudonyms in their pleadings as their lawsuit proceeds toward a trial of their allegations that UCLA violated the civil rights of those taking part in 2024 campus protests.
“Under plaintiffs’ logic, any person who has engaged in pro-Palestine activism should be permitted to claim anonymity in court proceedings,” the regents’ attorneys state in court papers filed Tuesday with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Samantha Jessner in advance of a Sept. 11 hearing. “The law does not countenance that result.”
The regents and UCLA will not retaliate against any plaintiffs based on their decisions to sue, according to the regents’ attorneys’ pleadings.
The demonstrators consisted of students, faculty and community members unhappy with what they said was an ongoing genocide in Gaza. The protesters also targeted UCLA’s investment in companies that allegedly profited from the strife. Thistle Boosinger, Faraaz Qureshi and Jakob Johnson are among the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in March 2025, alleging constitutional rights violations as well as assault and battery.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys previously filed court papers asking that the nine plaintiffs who wish to remain anonymous and proceed as “Roes” be allowed to do so.
“Plaintiffs seek leave of court to proceed under pseudonyms because public disclosure of their identities through the court’s publicly searchable docket would expose them and their families to a substantial risk of harassment, doxxing, retaliatory violence and deportation,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers argue in their pleadings.
The plaintiffs maintain UCLA police and private security companies failed to protect them from attacks from people they say were members of far-right extremist groups who attacked their pro-Palestinian solidarity encampment. Boosinger says she was hit hard in one hand by a metal rod.
The plaintiffs as a whole are current and former students and faculty at UCLA, legal observers, journalists and concerned members of the public who were on the UCLA campus between April 30 and May 2, 2024, or June 10, 2024, according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ court papers.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers accuse the Trump administration in their court papers of leading a “coordinated, targeted effort to suppress political activism,” noting that in September 2025, Trump signed an executive order declaring that those who oppose “far-right extremists, white supremacy and neo-Nazis are members of antifa and designated antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.”
According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ court papers, Roe 2 is working toward a nursing degree and may need to attend UCLA to complete it, but he is concerned about retaliation from an institution with substantial reach in the Los Angeles medical community as well as about prospective employers learning of his political views and activism.
“He no longer believes he can rely on the First Amendment to protect his political expression,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers state in their pleadings.
Roe 5 is an untenured faculty member whose professional standing is precarious after a student wrote in course evaluations that Roe 5 should be “fired, not allowed to teach anywhere and investigated” after photographing pro-Palestinian materials displayed in the professor’s office, according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ court papers, which further state that a senior colleague sent Roe 5 an “intimidating email” accusing the professor of antisemitism.
Roe 7 worries both her student visa and her scholarship will be revoked if her participation in the litigation is revealed, according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ court papers. In addition, UCLA also earlier placed a wrongful hold on Roe 7’s graduation, requiring her to attend a disciplinary meeting and sign an agreement with the university before she was entitled to attended commencement exercises, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ court papers.
In their previous court papers, attorneys for the UC Regents stated that when violence broke out between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters, UCLA made the “reasoned decision” to ask law enforcement to clear the encampment immediately “for the safety of the campus community.”
These 9 plaintiffs who want anonymity can dish it out but can’t take it. Very cowardly.
It’s interesting that the UC Regents argue allowing pseudonyms could open the floodgates for anyone involved in activism to hide their identity. Seems like a slippery slope to me. related tool
It’s quite concerning that the UC Regents are denying anonymity to those alleging civil rights violations. If the lawsuit holds merit, shouldn’t the plaintiffs feel safe to speak out without fear of retribution? this resource
It’s puzzling that the UC Regents believe allowing pseudonyms for these plaintiffs could lead to rampant anonymity among activists. Isn’t the right to seek justice a fundamental part of civil rights, regardless of the setting? relevant link