The court held that the company had “failed to articulate any basis for the request for anonymity other than an inchoate concern that there might be negative publicity attendant upon an open challenge to the Attorney General’s CID.” The court held that the mere fact of receiving a CID did not “give rise to a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and to litigate its challenge to the authority of the Attorney General under a veil of secrecy which would deny the public the right to know the identity of the parties to this action.” The court also noted that the cases in which plaintiffs have been permitted to proceed under pseudonyms have involved privacy rights, which corporations do not have. The court also supported its holding by noting that if the Attorney General had issued a subpoena, either in a civil or a criminal case, that fact would be public. The court gave the plaintiff ten days to file its complaint in its own name, holding in abeyance the plaintiff’s other claims. The court later dismissed those claims.