A.D. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02701
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 A.D., and A.O.S., individually, No. 2:24-cv-02701 WBS SCR and on behalf of all others 13 similarly situated, 14 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS 15 v. 16 CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., d/b/a FIRST RESPONSE, 17 Defendant. 18

19 ----oo0oo---- 20 Plaintiffs A.D. and A.O.S. have moved to proceed under 21 pseudonyms. (Docket No. 6.) Plaintiffs request to use their 22 initials in all public filings in this case because the filings 23 will contain sensitive “medical information regarding pregnancy 24 testing and family planning.” (Id. at 3.) Specifically, they do 25 not want to disclose to the public their “use of pregnancy tests, 26 fertility tests, and other reproductive health products,” which 27 could cause them “embarrassment and emotional injury due to the 28 1 intimate nature” of the information at issue. (Id.) Plaintiffs 2 note that their names have already been disclosed to defendant 3 Church & Wright Co., Inc., so they only wish to remain anonymous 4 to the general public. (Id. at 3-4.) Defendant does not oppose 5 the instant motion and does not appear prejudiced if plaintiffs 6 use only their initials in public filings. 7 On the one hand, plaintiffs request runs contrary to 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1), which provides that 9 “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in 10 interest.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“[T]he complaint must 11 name all the parties.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 reflect “[t]he normal presumption in litigation [which] is that 13 parties must use their real names.” Doe v. Kamehameha 14 Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 15 2010). 16 On the other hand, a party may proceed under pseudonym 17 “in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity 18 outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s 19 interest in knowing the party’s identity,” including when 20 necessary to “‘protect a person from harassment, injury, 21 ridicule[,] or personal embarrassment.’” Does I thru XXIII v. 22 Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000) 23 (quoting United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 24 1981)). 25 The Ninth Circuit has noted that courts have allowed 26 plaintiffs to use pseudonyms “when anonymity is necessary ‘to 27 preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal 28 nature.’” Id. at 1068 (quoting James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 1 238 (4th Cir. 1993)). And in determining whether to allow a 2 party to proceed anonymously, the court looks to whether “the 3 party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing 4 party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” 5 Id. 6 In other similar cases, courts appear to have routinely 7 found that plaintiffs’ need for privacy outweigh the public’s 8 general right of access to court filings. See Doe v. Deschamps, 9 64 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Mont. 1974) (“The intensely personal 10 nature of pregnancy does, we believe, create an unusual case, and 11 in such a case the general policy of full disclosure may well 12 give way to a policy of protecting privacy in a very private 13 matter.”). “Federal courts specifically favor anonymity when 14 cases involve pregnancy and childbirth, due to its extremely 15 personal nature.” S.A.A. v. Geisler, No. 21-cv-02071, 2022 WL 16 179198, at *1-2 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2022), and courts tend to be 17 sympathetic to plaintiffs’ claims that they will suffer 18 embarrassment and mental distress if they are required to 19 disclose their names and their reproductive health to the public. 20 See Doe #1 v. Syracuse Univ., No. 5:18-CV-0496, 2018 WL 7079489, 21 at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2018) (“[P]regnancy [claims] are 22 examples of matters that qualify as being highly sensitive and of 23 a personal nature.”).1 24 1 See also Michael v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 14-cv-2657, 25 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 26 sexual orientation, pregnancy, or minor children[,] in which 27 courts have justified anonymous plaintiffs proceeding pseudonymously.”). 28 nee enn eee nnn nnn on EN OSE ONE I

1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to 2 Proceed Pseudonymously (Docket No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, 3 | GRANTED. dh blew (hi. 4 | Dated: January 10, 2025 Pi ble VS oh 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28