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

 PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

Case No. 3:17-cv-00557

1144665.01 

JULIA HARUMI MASS, SBN 189649

MICHAEL T. RISHER, SBN 191627 

WILLIAM S. FREEMAN, SBN 82002 

NOVELLA Y. COLEMAN, SBN 281632 

CHRISTINE P. SUN, SBN 218701 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, INC. 

39 Drumm Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 621-2493 

Facsimile: (415) 255-8437 

Email: jmass@aclunc.org 

Attorneys For Plaintiffs 

Hadil Al-Mowafak, Wasim Ghaleb And 

John Doe, On Behalf Of Themselves And 

Others Similarly Situated; ACLU Of 

Northern California; Jewish Family & 

Community Services East Bay 

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 

R. ADAM LAURIDSEN - # 243780 

alauridsen@kvn.com 

JAY RAPAPORT - # 281964 

jrapaport@kvn.com 

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 

633 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 

Telephone: 415 391 5400 

Facsimile: 415 397 7188 

Attorneys For Plaintiffs 

Hadil Al-Mowafak, Wasim Ghaleb And John 

Doe, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others 

Similarly Situated; ACLU Of Northern 

California; Jewish Family & Community Services 

East Bay 

SEE NEXT PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL COUNSEL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Hadil Al-Mowafak, Wasim Ghaleb and

John Doe, on behalf of themselves and 

others similarly situated; ACLU of 

Northern California; Jewish Family & 

Community Services East Bay, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Donald Trump, President of the United 

States; U.S. Department of State; U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security; U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection; Rex W. 

Tillerson, Secretary of State; John Kelly, 

Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security; Kevin McAleenan, Acting 

Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 

Patrol; Carrie Azurin, Field Director, San 

Francisco Field Office of U.S. Customs 

and Border Patrol, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00557 

PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED 

ANONYMOUSLY 

Date Filed: February 2, 2017 

Trial Date: 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 12 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 6
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

 PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

Case No. 3:17-cv-00557

1144665.01 

AHILAN T. ARULANANTHAM, SBN 237841 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

1313 West 8th Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Telephone: (213) 977-5211 

Facsimile: (213) 977-5297 

Email: aarulanantham@aclu-sc.org

BARDIS VAKILI, SBN 247783 

DAVID LOY, SBN 229235 

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO 

AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES 

P.O. Box 87131 

San Diego, CA 92138-7131 

Telephone: (619) 232-2121 

Facsimile: (619) 232-0036 

Email: bvakili@aclusandiego.org

ANDRE SEGURA, SBN 247681 

OMAR C. JADWAT* 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS 

PROJECT 

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

Telephone: (212) 549-2618 

Facsimile: (212) 549-2654 

Email: asegura@aclu.org

CECILLIA D. WANG, SBN 187782 

JENNIFER CHANG NEWELL, SBN 233033 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS 

PROJECT 

39 Drumm Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 343-0770 

Facsimile: (212) 395-0950 

Email: cwang@aclu.org

*Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 12 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 6
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

 PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

Case No. 3:17-cv-00557

1144665.01 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiffs move under Civil Local Rule 7-11 for leave to allow Plaintiff John Doe (“Doe”) 

to proceed in this litigation under a fictitious name. The Court should allow Doe to proceed 

under a pseudonym because he belongs to a group—non-citizen Muslims—whose members risk 

loss of economic opportunities, deportation, and harassment. See Does I through XXIII v. 

Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1070-73 (9th Cir. 2000) (permitting plaintiffs working in 

U.S. territory lawfully, but nonetheless at risk of deportation, to proceed anonymously). 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

On January 27, 2017, Defendant Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order entitled 

“Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Compl. ¶ 22. 

Among other things, the Executive Order bars admission to the United States of aliens from seven 

predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Id. ¶¶ 25, 

29. On the same day, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services at the Bureau of Consular 

Affairs of the Department of State, relying in part on the Executive Order, issued a letter 

purporting to provisionally revoke all valid immigrant and nonimmigrant visas of nationals of 

those seven countries. Id. ¶ 27. As alleged in the complaint, numerous statements made by 

Defendant Trump, his campaign, and his advisors, and statements made in the documents 

themselves, collectively convey the intention to execute a “Muslim ban” in the United States. Id.

¶¶ 30-42.1

 

John Doe is an Iranian national who holds a valid student visa and is a Ph.D candidate at 

the University of California, Berkeley. Doe Decl. ¶ 3. Doe has a pending application for 

Optional Practical Training, which would allow him to extend his stay in the United States, as 

well as a job offer from a Fortune 50 Silicon Valley company. Id. ¶ 4. Doe fears retaliation 

should his participation in this lawsuit become public. Id. ¶¶ 6-8. 

 

1 In addition to Defendant Trump, the other Defendants in this action are the U.S. Department of 

State; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Rex W. 

Tillerson, Secretary of State; John Kelly, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 

Kevin McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol; Carrie Azurin, 

Field Director, San Francisco Field Office of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, (collectively, 

“Defendants”). 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 12 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 6
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

 PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

Case No. 3:17-cv-00557

1144665.01 

III. ARGUMENT 

Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires that the title of a complaint 

“name all the parties,” 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.” 

Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068. These circumstances include when identification creates a 

risk of retaliatory physical, mental, or economic harm. Id. at 1068, 1070. 

In determining whether to allow a party to proceed anonymously, “a district court must 

balance five factors: ‘(1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the 

anonymous party’s fears, . . . (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation,’ (4) the 

prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) the public interest.” Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice 

Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d 

at 1068). All five factors favor allowing Doe to proceed anonymously here. 

A. The public interest favors allowing Doe to proceed anonymously. 

Because “the public interest sets the stage” for a motion for leave to proceed 

anonymously, it is appropriate to begin there. Kamehameha Sch., 596 F.3d at 1042. “Action that 

may chill a party’s willingness to litigate constitutional issues and violations of statutes is 

generally considered against public policy.” See A.B.T. v. United States Citizenship & 

Immigration Servs., No. 2:11-CV-02108 RAJ, 2012 WL 2995064, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Jul. 20, 

2012). Doe fears retaliation should his participation in the lawsuit become known. Doe Decl. 

¶ 6. Forcing him “to disclose [his] identity would likely chill [his] willingness to challenge 

statutory and constitutional violations.” A.B.T., 2012 WL 2995064, at *6. Permitting the use of a 

pseudonym thus serves the public’s “interest in seeing this case decided on the merits.” 

Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1073. 

Conversely, the public interest in open proceedings will not be impaired if Doe proceeds 

anonymously. Plaintiffs challenge actions that apply across the board to non-citizen Muslims; 

there is no reason to think that Doe’s individual circumstances will affect the resolution of this 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 12 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 6
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

 PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

Case No. 3:17-cv-00557

1144665.01 

matter. For that reason, the use of a pseudonym will not “obstruct public scrutiny of the 

important issues in this case.” Id. at 1072.

B. Doe reasonably fears that he will suffer severe harm if forced to disclose his 

identity. 

Absent leave to proceed anonymously, Doe believes that he faces the risk of reprisal, 

including the loss of work opportunities and his visa status. Doe Decl. ¶¶ 6-8. The Ninth Circuit 

and other courts recognize these dangers as “extraordinary.” Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1071; 

see also Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004); Hispanic Interest Coal. of 

Ala. v. Governor of Ala., 691 F.3d 1236, 1247 n.8 (11th Cir. 2012). And in this case, Doe’s fears 

are well-grounded. 

Doe personally knows Muslim students and Iranian nationals who have experienced 

significant and unexplained delays in the processing of immigration benefits. Doe Decl. ¶ 7. 

Moreover, certain officers acting at the direction of Defendants reportedly have exerted undue 

pressure on those who are subject to the Executive Order—including pressuring individuals to 

waive their rights to reside in the United States and forcibly removing them before courts could 

rule on their challenges to the Order.2

Doe also faces threats of harassment and intimidation that justify shielding his identity. 

Hispanic Interest Coal. of Ala., 691 F.3d at 1247. Leading up to and continuing after the 2016 

election, the nation experienced a disturbing increase in anti-Muslim harassment and violence, 

including at California universities.3 Doe should not have to face such risks if he does not wish 

to. 

 

2 See Oliver Laughland and Joanna Walters, Immigration officials coerced Yemenis to sign away 

green cards, suit claims, The Guardian, Jan. 30, 2017, available at 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/trump-travel-ban-yemenis-coercedrelinquish-green-card (last visited February 2, 2017); Matt Zapotosky, Federal judge orders U.S. 

to return Iranian who was deported under new order, Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2017, available 

at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/postpolitics/wp/2017/01/29/banorder/?utm_term=.00ea8aee3144 (last visited February 2, 2017). 

3

 Sarah Ravani, Islamic Center of Davis vandalized; incident probed as hate crime, San Francisco 

Chronicle, Jan. 24, 2017, available at http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Vandalized-mosqueleaves-Davis-resident-in-10881175.php (last visited February 2, 2017); Chris Nguyen, Muslim 

student attacked for wearing hijab in Stanford Athletics ad, ABC7 News, Sept. 13, 2016, 

available at http://abc7news.com/news/muslim-student-attacked-for-hijab-in-stanford-athleticsad/1510536/ (last visited February 2, 2017). 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 12 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 6
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

 PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

Case No. 3:17-cv-00557

1144665.01 

C. Doe is vulnerable to retaliation. 

Doe’s vulnerability to the harms discussed above is plain. On its face, the Provisional 

Revocation Letter revokes Doe’s visa, rendering him vulnerable to removal. See Advanced 

Textile, 214 F.3d at 1072. Further, as noted above, certain Defendants allegedly have disregarded 

the judicial process in other challenges to the Executive Order and removed individuals even 

while courts are in the process of considering their requests for temporary relief. And, of course, 

publicly naming himself in a legal challenge to Defendants’ actions makes Doe a likelier target 

for anti-Muslim harassment. 

D. Defendants will not be prejudiced if Doe proceeds anonymously. 

Defendants do not need to know Doe’s identity to resolve the issues in this case, 

especially at this early stage of the litigation. As noted above, this case involves constitutional 

and statutory violations that apply broadly to non-citizen Muslims. If Defendants later have a 

valid need for discovery that requires disclosure of Doe’s identity—a purely hypothetical scenario 

for now—the parties can meet and confer on an appropriate protective order at that time. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Doe leave to proceed anonymously in 

this action. 

Dated: February 2, 2017 

By:

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

/s/ Jay Rapaport

 R. ADAM LAURIDSEN 

JAY RAPAPORT 

 Attorneys For Plaintiffs 

Hadil Al-Mowafak, Wasim Ghaleb And 

John Doe, On Behalf Of Themselves And 

Others Similarly Situated; ACLU Of 

Northern California; Jewish Family & 

Community Services East Bay 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 12 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 6