Sealing and pseudonym motions
Company: Marathon Digital
The claim, verbatim
The court granted the Doe plaintiffs' motion to file under seal and ordered the related filings sealed. It granted their motion to proceed under pseudonyms and denied the alternative request for a protective order.
Source (primary)
<mark>MARA Holdings, Inc</mark>. v. Hood County, Texas — Entry #13 (RECAP, court_filing)
View cached copy (2026-11-01)Live source ↗
Quote: “Doe Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and for a Protective Order (ECF No. 12-3) is GRANTED as to the Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and DENIED as to the Protective Order.”
How we checked this
This claim has not yet been checked assertion-by-assertion against its source. It carries a cited source and quote, but the deeper check has not run. When it does, the result appears here whatever it says.
Additional evidence
confirms <mark>MARA Holdings, Inc</mark>. v. Hood County, Texas — Entry #13
Quote: “Doe Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and for a Protective Order (ECF No. 12-3) is GRANTED as to the Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and DENIED as to the Protective Order.”