E.H. v. Lifelong Adoptions, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00441
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 E.H. and V.P., on behalf of themselves and Case No. 1:25-cv-00441-JLT-BAM all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION TO PROCEED 13 PSEUDONYMOUSLY v. 14 (Doc. 2) LIFELONG ADOPTIONS, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiffs E.H. and V.P., proceeding with counsel, initiated this action on April 16, 2025, 18 against Defendant Lifelong Adoptions, Inc. (Doc. 1.) On the same date, Plaintiffs filed the 19 instant motion requesting to appear and proceed in this action pseudonymously because this case 20 involves unplanned pregnancies and adoption services. (Doc. 2.) Defendant LifeLong 21 Adoptions, Inc. was served with a copy of the motion, along with the summons and complaint. 22 (See Doc. 5.) Although LifeLong has filed a motion to dismiss, it has not filed any opposition or 23 objection to the instant motion. (See generally Docket.) Having considered the motion, and for 24 the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed pseudonymously will be granted. 25 LEGAL STANDARD 26 The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names, which is 27 loosely related to the public’s right to open courts and the right of private individuals to confront 28 1 their accusers. Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th 2 Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). However, courts permit parties to proceed anonymously when 3 special circumstances justify secrecy. Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 4 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Ninth Circuit, a party may proceed with a pseudonym “in the 5 ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary ... to protect a person from 6 harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Id. at 1067-68 (quotation and citation 7 omitted). “[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special 8 circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party 9 and the public's interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. Applying this balancing 10 test, courts have permitted plaintiffs to use pseudonyms in three situations: (1) when 11 identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is 12 necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when 13 the anonymous party is compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, 14 thereby risking criminal prosecution. Id. (citations omitted). 15 DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiffs request that they be allowed to proceed under pseudonyms because the case 17 involves unintended pregnancies and the decision of whether to place a child up for adoption. 18 (Doc. 2 at 1-4.) In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant LifeLong is a for-profit 19 adoption agency. Plaintiffs further allege that they experienced unplanned pregnancies, they 20 accessed Defendant LifeLong’s website to request consultations due to their unplanned 21 pregnancies, and unbeknownst to them, Defendant LifeLong allegedly collected their personally 22 identifiable, highly sensitive information, including the fact that they were seeking adoption 23 services, and provided that information to third-party internet advertisers in exchange for 24 marketing services. (Doc. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 1-10; see also Doc. 2 at 1-2.) 25 Plaintiffs assert that due to the highly sensitive factual matter underlying this action, 26 Plaintiffs are at severe risk of suffering embarrassment and reputational harm if they are not 27 permitted to proceed pseudonymously. As alleged in their complaint, Plaintiffs explain that 28 “numerous studies have noted that feelings of intense shame are often experienced by mothers 1 experiencing unintended pregnancy, particularly due to the intense social stigma attached in many 2 communities.” (Doc. 2 at 2; Compl. ¶ 95.) Plaintiffs assert that their need for anonymity 3 outweighs the public’s interest in knowing their identities. Plaintiffs acknowledge that while “the 4 public certainly has an interest in the subject matter of the litigation—the surreptitious farming of 5 sensitive, personal information by website providers—that interest is not particularly advanced by 6 identifying the names of two out of the thousands of impacted individuals.” (Doc. 2 at 4-5.) 7 Plaintiffs allege that through the surveillance software installed on its website, Defendant 8 LifeLong “surreptitiously recorded, transmitted, and sold Plaintiffs’ communications regarding 9 the most private, sensitive, and embarrassing aspects of their lives: their struggle with the 10 decision of whether to place a child up for adoption. (Doc. 2 at 4, citing Compl. ¶¶ 1-10, 64-73.) 11 Plaintiffs contend that if the “Court refuses to allow them to proceed pseudonymously, it will 12 essentially be holding that, to seek recompense for the unlawful disclosure of highly sensitive 13 personal information, a potential litigant must first make that same highly sensitive information 14 available to the public.” (Id.) Plaintiffs assert that such a rule “would undoubtedly have a severe 15 chilling effect on any similar litigation in the future.” (Id.) According to Plaintiffs, many federal 16 courts have recognized that, “where forcing a plaintiff to publicly identify herself would deter 17 similar claims, there is a significant public interest served by allowing the plaintiff to proceed 18 pseudonymously.” (Id. at 4 (citing cases).) 19 Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant LifeLong will not be prejudiced if 20 Plaintiffs are allowed to proceed pseudonymously because they will privately disclose their 21 identities to Defendant LifeLong through their counsel. (Doc. 2 at 3.) 22 The Court finds good cause to grant the motion based on the allegations at issue and 23 because of Plaintiffs’ representation that their identities will be disclosed privately to Defendant 24 LifeLong through counsel. “Federal courts specifically favor anonymity when cases involve 25 pregnancy and childbirth, due to its extremely personal nature.” A.D. v. Church & Dwight Co., 26 No. 2:24-CV-02701 WBS SCR, 2025 WL 83303, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2025) (citation 27 omitted). 28 1 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Having considered the motion, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ need for anonymity 3 outweighs any countervailing interests. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ 4 motion to proceed pseudonymously (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 Dated: June 20, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28