OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff purports to be the individual who leaked the now-famous trove of offshore financial records known as the “Panama Papers.” Using the pseudonym “John Doe” and proceeding pro se, Plaintiff filed this breach of contract action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act against the Federal Republic of Germany (“Germany”) and the Bundeskriminalamt of Germany (“BKA”) on July 24, 2023. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have failed to pay amounts due under a contract pursuant to which Defendants purchased access to the Panama Papers for use in identifying tax fraud and other financial crimes. (See Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”)). Pending before the Court are three ex parte motions filed by Plaintiff simultaneously with the Complaint: a motion for leave to serve Defendants via alternative means (Dkt. No. 6); a motion for leave to proceed anonymously under a pseudonym (Dkt. No. 3);1 and a motion for leave to participate in electronic case filing (“ECF”) (Dkt. No. 5). Defendants, who have not yet been served with the Complaint, have made no appearance in the action. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that it lacks authority under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to authorize alternative service in this case. Plaintiff’s motion for alternative service is, therefore, DENIED. The Court further concludes that it would be inappropriate to decide whether to permit Plaintiff to proceed anonymously until Defendants have been served with the Complaint and have had an opportunity to be heard on this issue and until Plaintiff evinces a willingness to disclose Plaintiff’s identity to the court under seal, as would be required if the motion were granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously under a pseudonym is DENIED without prejudice. Finally, Plaintiff’s motion for ECF privileges is DENIED with leave to renew. BACKGROUND A. The Complaint’s Allegations Plaintiff alleges that he2 is the “original source” of the Panama Papers (Compl. 3), a database of confidential, encrypted documents that have been described as a “cache of 11.5 million records show[ing] how a global industry of law firms and big banks sell financial secrecy to politicians, fraudsters and drug traffickers as well as billionaires, celebrities, and sports stars.” (Id. 22; citation omitted). The leaked files came from the Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca. (Id. 24). Plaintiff alleges that, at all times relevant to the Complaint, he was a citizen of the United States. (Id. 17). In early 2015, Plaintiff alleges he began transferring the Panama Papers to journalists Bastian Obermayer and Frederik Obermaier of the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. (Id. 20). Working in collaboration with the two journalists, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (the “ICIJ”) published a series of stories and analyses derived from the Panama Papers beginning in April 2016. (Id.
21-23). “[A]n earthquake” followed. (Id. 2; citation omitted). According to the ICIJ, the Panama Papers “reveal[ed] how associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin secretly shuffled as much as $2 billion through banks and shadow companies” and “expose[d] offshore companies controlled by” the highest-ranking officials of numerous other nations. (Id. 24; citation omitted). The leaked documents also contained the names of “29 billionaires featured in Forbes Magazine’s list of the world’s 500 richest people,” as well as “at least 33 people and companies blacklisted by the U.S. government because of evidence of wrongdoing, such as doing business with Mexican drug lords, terrorist organizations like Hezbollah or rogue nations like North Korea and Iran.” (Id.; citation omitted). In 2021, the ICIJ reported that the Panama Papers had sparked inquiries that enabled countries to recoup more than $1.36 billion in unpaid taxes and fines; served as a catalyst for anti-money laundering legislation in the United States and United Kingdom, among other countries; and led to the resignation or removal from office of the prime ministers of Iceland and Pakistan. (Id. 25). Although Plaintiff received no payment from the ICIJ or its partners, he alleges that the leak put his life in danger and, as a result, he needed money to protect himself; he also believed he deserved a portion of the tax proceeds that some governments would recoup from using the Panama Papers. (Id.
