A reader writes:

I agree with your other attorney reader that there isn’t much terribly odd in the list of pleadings, particularly given the background population (i.e., the former Governor of Alaska). I wanted to clarify that I expect the motion for a “protective order” in this context was not from Levi, but from publication of the pleadings.

I am not admitted in Alaska, and without researching the rules used there, I cannot cite them, but given the other documents filed concurrently with the motion, that is my belief. Had Van Flein sought to “protect” if you will from Levi, the motion would most likely have been for a “restraining order.” The term of art “protective order” generally denotes the protection of information, contained in documents, and that use is consistent with the motion for proceeding under pseudonyms. It can be confusing to the lay public as restraining orders are often colloquially referred to as “protective orders,” and the term is indeed used that way legally in some jurisdictions. However, traditionally the term refers to protection of documents, and I am reasonably certain that is its use in the case known in Alaskan courts as 3PA-09-02261CI Palin, Bristol vs. Johnston, Levi.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.