B. v. Brooks-Lasure

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 17, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-04501
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 D. B. as conservator for JOHN DOE 1; C.C. as guardian for JANE DOE 1; 11 JOHN DOE 2; and JANE DOE 2 No. C 22-04501 WHA on behalf of themselves and all others 12 similarly situated,

13 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 14 v.

15 CHIQUITA BROOKS-LASURE, in her official capacity as Administrator for the 16 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 17 OF PUBLIC HEALTH; TOMAS ARAGON in his official capacity as Director of the 18 California Department of Public Health; XAVIER BECERRA in his official capacity 19 as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and 20 DOES 1 through 30, 21 Defendants.

22 23 In this putative class action, plaintiffs claim defendants were and are relocating them and 24 other residents of a skilled nursing facility in violation of state and federal law. Plaintiffs 25 request that they and their conservators be allowed to proceed under pseudonyms. Defendants 26 have failed to oppose plaintiffs’ motion for administrative relief within the time allotted under 27 Civil Local Rule 7-11(b). Thus, the motion is “deemed submitted for immediate determination 1 “[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special 2 circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party 3 and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” “[C]ourts have permitted plaintiffs 4 to use pseudonyms . . . when anonymity is necessary ‘to preserve privacy in a matter of 5 sensitive and highly personal nature.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 6 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). 7 Here, each of plaintiffs has a severe mental disability (such as brain injury, dementia, and 8 depression) or an uncommon medical condition (such as compulsive behavior, brittle diabetes, 9 and hemorrhagic stroke). The sensitive and highly personal nature of such mental health 10 information and medical diagnoses weighs in favor of anonymity. Other courts in our circuit 11 have found the same. Roe v. United States, 2020 WL 869153, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020) 12 (Judge Dale A. Drozd); Doe v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 2017 WL 1508982, at *2 5 13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2017) Judge Kandis A. Westmore); see Dep’t of Fair Emp. & Hous. v. 14 Law School Admission Council, Inc., 2012 WL 3583023, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2012) 3 15 (Judge Edward M. Chen). a 16 Furthermore, there would be no prejudice to defendants should this order grant plaintiffs’ 3 17 motion. Plaintiffs’ identities are unnecessary to determine “the effect that administrative 18 action (specifically requiring closure and relocation) will have and has had on a large class of 19 individuals with disabilities and medical conditions” (Br. 4). Similarly, the public will have 20 access to all relevant facts despite not knowing plaintiffs’ identities. In fact, the public has an 21 interest in ensuring that persons with mental disabilities are not chilled from bringing lawsuits 22 for concerns of privacy. Doe v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 550 23 (D.N.J. 2006) (Judge Jose L. Linares). 24 Plaintiffs’ need for anonymity, therefore, outweighs the public’s interest in knowing 25 plaintiffs’ identities and any prejudice to defendants. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. 26 Dated: August 17, 2022. 27 {A [Ane LLIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE