Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02701/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02701-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

A.D., and A.O.S., individually, 

and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., d/b/a 

FIRST RESPONSE,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-02701 WBS SCR

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs A.D. and A.O.S. have moved to proceed under 

pseudonyms. (Docket No. 6.) Plaintiffs request to use their 

initials in all public filings in this case because the filings 

will contain sensitive “medical information regarding pregnancy 

testing and family planning.” (Id. at 3.) Specifically, they do 

not want to disclose to the public their “use of pregnancy tests, 

fertility tests, and other reproductive health products,” which 

could cause them “embarrassment and emotional injury due to the 

Case 2:24-cv-02701-WBS-SCR Document 19 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 4
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

2

intimate nature” of the information at issue. (Id.) Plaintiffs 

note that their names have already been disclosed to defendant 

Church & Wright Co., Inc., so they only wish to remain anonymous 

to the general public. (Id. at 3-4.) Defendant does not oppose 

the instant motion and does not appear prejudiced if plaintiffs 

use only their initials in public filings.

On the one hand, plaintiffs request runs contrary to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1), which provides that 

“[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in 

interest.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“[T]he complaint must 

name all the parties.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

reflect “[t]he normal presumption in litigation [which] is that 

parties must use their real names.” Doe v. Kamehameha 

Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 

2010). 

On the other hand, a party may proceed under pseudonym

“in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity 

outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s 

interest in knowing the party’s identity,” including when 

necessary to “‘protect a person from harassment, injury, 

ridicule[,] or personal embarrassment.’” Does I thru XXIII v. 

Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000)

(quoting United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 

1981)).

The Ninth Circuit has noted that courts have allowed 

plaintiffs to use pseudonyms “when anonymity is necessary ‘to 

preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal 

nature.’” Id. at 1068 (quoting James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233,

Case 2:24-cv-02701-WBS-SCR Document 19 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 4
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

3

238 (4th Cir. 1993)). And in determining whether to allow a 

party to proceed anonymously, the court looks to whether “the 

party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing 

party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” 

Id.

In other similar cases, courts appear to have routinely 

found that plaintiffs’ need for privacy outweigh the public’s 

general right of access to court filings. See Doe v. Deschamps,

64 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Mont. 1974) (“The intensely personal 

nature of pregnancy does, we believe, create an unusual case, and 

in such a case the general policy of full disclosure may well 

give way to a policy of protecting privacy in a very private 

matter.”). “Federal courts specifically favor anonymity when 

cases involve pregnancy and childbirth, due to its extremely 

personal nature.” S.A.A. v. Geisler, No. 21-cv-02071, 2022 WL 

179198, at *1-2 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2022), and courts tend to be 

sympathetic to plaintiffs’ claims that they will suffer 

embarrassment and mental distress if they are required to 

disclose their names and their reproductive health to the public. 

See Doe #1 v. Syracuse Univ., No. 5:18-CV-0496, 2018 WL 7079489, 

at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2018) (“[P]regnancy [claims] are 

examples of matters that qualify as being highly sensitive and of 

a personal nature.”).1 

1 See also Michael v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 14-cv-2657, 

2015 WL 585592, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2015) (“[M]atters of a 

highly sensitive or personal nature [include] claims involving 

sexual orientation, pregnancy, or minor children[,] in which 

courts have justified anonymous plaintiffs proceeding 

pseudonymously.”). 

Case 2:24-cv-02701-WBS-SCR Document 19 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to 

Proceed Pseudonymously (Docket No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, 

GRANTED.

Dated: January 10, 2025

Case 2:24-cv-02701-WBS-SCR Document 19 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 4