Doe v. United Of Omaha Life Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 21, 2023
• Docket: 4:23-cv-02307
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN DOE, Case No. 23-cv-02307-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. PROCEED UNDER A PSEUDONYM

10 UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE Re: ECF No. 3 COMPANY, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to proceed under a pseudonym. ECF No. 14 3. The Court will grant the motion. 15 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. 16 Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Parties 17 may proceed pseudonymously only “in the ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s 18 identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal 19 embarrassment.” Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 20 2000) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 21 1981)). “Because there is a presumption that parties’ identities are public information, anonymity 22 is only proper under ‘special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs 23 prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.’” Doe v. 24 UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 164 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Advanced 25 Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068). 26 The Ninth Circuit has written that a plaintiff has a need to proceed anonymously where the 27 plaintiff seeks to “preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature.” Advanced 1 from severe major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, severe cannabis use disorder, 2 opioid use disorder, and insomnia. ECF No. 1 ¶ 2. Associating Plaintiff with this combination of 3 conditions, especially his substance use disorders, through disclosure of his identity would 4 necessarily expose Plaintiff to social stigma and would threaten future job opportunities that he 5 may pursue. These circumstances render this case “unusual” and thus make anonymity 6 appropriate. Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068 (United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d at 922 n.1); see 7 K.H.B. ex rel. K.D.B. v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co., No. C 18-04175 WHA, 2018 WL 4053457, at 8 *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018); Doe v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 2:22-cv-00491-RSM, 2022 9 WL 2237214, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2022). 10 Defendant will not be prejudiced if Plaintiff proceeds pseudonymously. The complaint 11 identifies Plaintiff’s claim number and policy group number, which enables Defendant to readily 12 discern his identity. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 6. Consequently, pseudonymity will not impede 13 Defendants’ ability to develop their case. Cf. Doe 1 v. Github, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. 22-cv- 14 06823-JST, 2023 WL 3449131, at *8 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2023) (concluding that the defendants 15 would not be prejudiced because “Plaintiffs have disclosed their true names to Defendants subject 16 to a protective order, so pseudonymity should not impede Defendants’ ability to develop their 17 case”). 18 Nor does the public interest weigh against permitting Plaintiffs to proceed 19 pseudonymously. “The normal presumption in litigation . . . that parties must use their real 20 names . . . is loosely related to the public’s right to open courts and the right of private individuals 21 to confront their accusers.” Kamehameha, 596 F.3d at 1042. But “[w]here the plaintiffs’ 22 identities are not central to the issues raised by a case, however, the public interest may not be 23 harmed by permitting plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously.” Github, 2023 WL 3449131, at *8 24 (collecting cases). Here, Plaintiff’s identity “appears to have no bearing on the resolution of the 25 issues,” and so “a pseudonym will not impede public access to the substance of the proceedings.” 26 Doe v. County of El Dorado, No. 2:13-CV-01433-KJM, 2013 WL 6230342, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27 2, 2013). If Plaintiff proceeds under a pseudonym, the parties need only redact Plaintiff’s name 1 documents under seal, which promotes public access to the record as a whole. And Defendant’s 2 || right to confront its accuser will not be impeded because the complaint, albeit indirectly, apprises 3 || Defendant of Plaintiff's identity. “Moreover, a denial here would incentivize insurance providers 4 || to implement a business strategy that tilts towards denying socially stigmatizing claims, forcing 5 claimants to litigate the stigmatizing claims public[ly] or elect to not pursue recovery.” K.H.B. ex 6 || rel. K.D.B., No. C 18-04175 WHA, 2018 WL 4053457, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018). 7 Balancing the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs need for 8 || anonymity outweighs prejudice to Defendant and the public’s interest in knowing Plaintiff's 9 || identity. Plaintiff's motion is therefore granted, and Plaintiff may continue to proceed as John 10 Doe. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: August 21, 2023 . Op tee JON S. TIGA 14 United States District Judge

2 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28