Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00746/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00746-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1 

19cv746-JLS-LL 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

L.S., 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

WILLIAM ASHLEY OLIVER III, et al., 

 Defendants.

 Case No.: 19cv746-JLS-LL 

ORDER GRANTING ENTRY OF 

PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH 

MODIFICATIONS 

[ECF No. 9] 

On July 8, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for entry of a Protective Order 

allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously. ECF No. 9. The “use of fictitious names runs 

afoul of the public’s common law right of access to judicial proceedings, and [Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure] 10(a)’s command that the title of every complaint ‘include the names 

of all the parties.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Adv. Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 

2000) (internal citations omitted). Thus, in the Ninth Circuit, parties may use pseudonyms 

only in “the ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity is necessary to 

protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Id. at 1067-

68 (internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted). 

 “[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special 

circumstances when the party's need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing 

Case 3:19-cv-00746-JLS-LL Document 10 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

19cv746-JLS-LL 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

party and the public's interest in knowing the party's identity.” Id. at 1068. As the Ninth 

Circuit has held, “[i]n cases where the plaintiffs have demonstrated a need for anonymity, 

the district court should use its powers” to “issue protective orders limiting disclosure of 

the party’s name” and “to preserve the party’s anonymity to the greatest extent possible 

without prejudicing the opposing party’s ability to litigate the case.” Id. at 1069. 

 Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s need for anonymity currently outweighs the public’s 

interest in her identity and the potential for prejudice to Defendants. First, with regard to 

prejudice to the opposing party, Defendant jointly moved for entry of a Protective Order 

that would allow Plaintiff to proceed anonymously. See ECF No. 7. Thus, under the present 

circumstances, the Court identifies no prejudice to Defendant in allowing Plaintiff to 

proceed under a pseudonym. Second, the Court does not perceive any particular interest 

the public might have in knowing Plaintiff’s identity. Finally, Plaintiff’s interest in 

protecting her identity is compelling at this point. Other Districts have recognized that 

“social stigmatization” is among “the most compelling reasons for permitting anonymity.” 

Roes 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 990, 994 (N.D. Cal. 2015). See also Doe 

v. George St. Photo & Video, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83965, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 

28, 2016). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Proposed Protective Order with the 

following modifications: 

1. Paragraph IV should read: “Notwithstanding the foregoing, and without 

further order of the Court, all pleadings and other documents filed with the 

Court shall not include or shall redact Plaintiff’s Identifying Characteristics, 

as defined in Section 1(B) of this Order. The responsibility for excluding or 

redacting Plaintiff’s Identifying Characteristics rests solely with the Parties 

and their attorneys.” 

2. Paragraph V should read: “Any party may object to a designation of the 

materials as confidential information. The party objecting to confidentiality 

must notify, in writing, counsel for the designating party of the objected-to 

Case 3:19-cv-00746-JLS-LL Document 10 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

19cv746-JLS-LL 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

materials and the grounds for the objection. If the dispute is not resolved 

consensually between the parties within seven (7) days of receipt of such a 

notice of objections, the objecting party may apply to the Court for a 

resolution of the dispute. Prior to applying to the Court for a resolution of the 

dispute, the parties will fully comply with the Chamber Rules of the assigned 

Magistrate Judge pertaining to Civil Discovery Disputes. The materials at 

issue must be treated as confidential information, as designated by the 

designating party, until the Court has ruled on the objection or the matter has 

otherwise been resolved.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 9, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-00746-JLS-LL Document 10 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3