Doe v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JANE DOE, Case No. 25-cv-06363-SK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO PROCEED ? v. ANONYMOUSLY 10 TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., Regarding Docket No. 6 11 Defendant. 12 Now before the Court is Plaintiff's administrative motion to proceed under a pseudonym.

13 || “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. 5 14 Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff

15 || must demonstrate that her need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the 16 public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.,

7 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000).

8 The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that publicly disclosing her name or other identifying information could lead to harassment. Therefore, the Court GRANTS her 19 administrative motion. The parties shall refer to Plaintiff by Pseudonym JANE DOE in all filings 20 and public proceedings and shall redact Plaintiff's true full name and other personally identifying 21 information from all filings consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. However, 22 Plaintiff shall disclose her identity to Defendant. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: August 4, 2025 . 25 Atl [aww 26 SALLIE KIM United States Magistrate Judge 27 28