UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DOE ONE, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

 Civil Action 2:18-cv-238 

 Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

v. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

ORDER

This matter is before the court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to 

Proceed Pseudonymously. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiffs John Does 1-3 filed their Complaint on 

March 21, 2018, asserting claims for unauthorized disclosure of medical records against the 

following Defendants: CVS Health Corporation; Caremark, L.L.C.; Caremark Rx, L.L.C.; 

Fiserv, Inc.; Fiserv Solutions, LLC; and Does 1-10. (ECF No. 1.) This Court issued a Show 

Cause Order on April 11, 2018, ordering Plaintiffs to either move for leave to proceed 

anonymously, or show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 20.) On 

April 25, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the subject Motion, seeking leave to proceed anonymously. (ECF 

No. 25.) Plaintiffs assert that they have been diagnosed with HIV, and that disclosure of their 

identities would disclose information of the utmost intimacy. For good cause shown, Plaintiffs’ 

Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may proceed in this action with the pseudonyms John Doe 

in place of their true identities. (ECF No. 25.) 

Generally, a complaint must state the names of all the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 
2 

However, the Court “may excuse plaintiffs from identifying themselves in certain 

circumstances.” Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004). To determine whether a 

plaintiff’s privacy interests outweigh the presumption in favor of openness, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has identified factors to consider, including: 

(1) whether the plaintiffs seeking anonymity are suing to challenge governmental 

activity; (2) whether prosecution of the suit will compel the plaintiffs to disclose 

information ‘of the utmost intimacy’; (3) whether the litigation compels plaintiffs 

to disclose an intention to violate the law, thereby risking criminal prosecution; 

and (4) whether the plaintiffs are children.” 

Id. (citing Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185-86 (5th Cir. 1981). This case implicates the second 

Porter factor. 

As Plaintiffs assert in their Motion, “given the stigma that HIV still carries in much of the 

country, Plaintiffs would be severely prejudiced by having to publicly disclose their medical 

condition.” (Mot. for Leave to Proceed Anonymously 3, ECF No. 25.) Moreover, Plaintiffs 

correctly note that many courts throughout the country have found that the privacy interests of

plaintiffs infected with HIV outweigh the presumption of openness. See, e.g., Roe v. City of New 

York, 151 F. Supp. 2d 495, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (granting leave to proceed anonymously and 

collecting cases). Because Plaintiffs have been diagnosed with HIV, disclosure of their identities 

would equate to a disclosure of information “of the utmost intimacy.” See Porter, 370 F.3d at 

560 (citing Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185-86 (5th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the Court finds 

compelling reasons to protect Plaintiffs’ privacy and shield them from discrimination and 

harassment. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously is GRANTED. 

(ECF No. 25.) In all publicly-filed documents, Plaintiffs shall only be identified as John Doe. 

All documents filed with this Court that contain the full name of Plaintiffs, or contain 

information that identifies them, directly or indirectly, shall be filed under seal. The filing
3 

party must also contemporaneously file a public version with any identifying information 

redacted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE