Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00587/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00587-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY WIRTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00587-JCS 

ORDER PROVISIONALLY 

GRANTING MOTION TO FILE 

COMPLAINT AND PROCEED UNDER 

A PSEUDONYM

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Plaintiff asks the Court for permission to proceed anonymously in this action because the 

claims she asserts are based on the public disclosure of sensitive and personal information about 

Plaintiff in Marin County Superior Court. In particular, in her complaint she alleges that private 

information about her disability, as well as her mother’s social security number, are in the public 

record of that court and that she fears that disclosure of her identity in this action would alert 

people of that information, causing harm to her private and professional life and harm to her 

mother. The Court GRANTS the request with the caveat that it will revisit this issue at a later 

stage of the case if the complaint is served on any Defendants.

The Ninth Circuit has held that “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 party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Does I thru XXIII v. 

Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068–69 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, courts have allowed 

plaintiffs to proceed anonymously “when anonymity is necessary ‘to preserve privacy in a matter 

of sensitive and highly personal nature[.]’” Id. (quoting James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238 (4th 

Cir. 1993); and citing Doe v. United Services Life Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 437 (S.D.N.Y.1988) 

(allowing plaintiff to sue insurance company anonymously to protect against identification as a 

Case 3:19-cv-00587-EMC Document 7 Filed 03/06/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

homosexual); Doe v. Deschamps, 64 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Mont. 1974) (permitting plaintiff in 

abortion suit to use pseudonym due to the personal nature of pregnancy)). The balancing that 

courts must conduct is specific to the stage of the case and “the court must . . . determine the 

precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to the opposing party, and whether proceedings 

may be structured so as to mitigate that prejudice.” Id. (citing James, 6 F.3d at 240–41). Thus, for 

example, the court in Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. found that the prejudice to 

defendants and the public of allowing the plaintiffs to proceed anonymously was relatively low 

based, in part, on the fact that the case was still in its early stages and discovery had been stayed.

Here, allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously will cause no prejudice to Defendants at 

this stage of the case because the case has not yet been reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or been 

served on defendants. On the other hand, the allegations in the complaint indicate that Plaintiff’s 

claims involve sensitive matters related to a disability. At this stage of the case, the Court 

concludes that Plaintiff’s privacy interests outweigh the interests of the public and Defendants in 

disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity. If the case is not dismissed under Section 1915 and the 

Complaint is served on any of the Defendants, the Court will revisit this question as it is likely that 

the interests of Defendants and the public in disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity will increase as the 

case proceeds.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2019

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00587-EMC Document 7 Filed 03/06/19 Page 2 of 2