Gather Church v. Lewis County et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05850
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 GATHER CHURCH, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05850-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DECLARATIONS IN 13 LEWIS COUNTY et al., PSEUDONYM (DKT. NO. 26) 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Declarations 17 in Pseudonym. (Dkt. No. 26.) The motion is unopposed. (See Dkt. No. 29 at 5.) For the 18 reasons outline below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. 19 I BACKGROUND 20 On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendants, alleging that 21 Lewis County Ordinance 1354 (“the Ordinance”) violates federal and state law by limiting 22 Plaintiff’s ability to conduct its syringe services program (“SSP”). (See Dkt. No. 1.) SSPs, 23 among other things, offer sterile syringes, disposal for used syringes, “provide overdose reversal 24 1 medication, vaccinations, screening and linkage to care for Hepatitis C and HIV, wound care, 2 first aid supplies, [and] drug test kits.” (Id. at 3.) On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion 3 for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 25.) Plaintiff attached numerous declarations in support of 4 its motion for preliminary injunction. (See id.) Plaintiff also filed this motion for leave to file

5 two declarations in pseudonym. (Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiff requests that the declarations of 6 Declarants J.H. and J.A. (together “Declarants”) be filed under pseudonym because their 7 declarations “provide evidence that is centrally relevant to [Plaintiff’s] claims, detailing the 8 essential benefits, services, and functions” of Plaintiff’s SSP, “as well as the harm that patients 9 have experienced and will continue to experience” as a result of the Ordinance. (Id. at 2.) 10 Plaintiff argues that Declarants “face significant risk of social stigma, public ridicule, and 11 harassment if their identities were made public;” “federal law recognizes [Declarants’] privacy 12 interest in their personal medical information;” and “Declarants admit to conduct that may 13 expose them to criminal liability.” (Id.) 14 Declarant J.H. is a patient who faces addiction and utilizes Plaintiff’s SSP. (Dkt. No. 26-

15 2 at 5.) J.H. requests to remain anonymous because “[h]aving an addiction and being homeless 16 already makes [him] a target for the police and the public to harass [him], especially in [his] 17 town.” (Id. at 6.) J.H. stated that if forced to reveal his identity, he would withdraw his 18 statement and “probably stop going to Gather.” (Id. at 6–7.) 19 Declarant J.A. has utilized Plaintiff’s SSP for the past three years to obtain “sterile 20 syringes, fentanyl test kits, cotton, and sterile water.” (Id. at 10.) J.A. wants to remain 21 anonymous because he wants to keep his personal information private, he does not want his 22 declaration to impact his ability to look for work in the future, and he is “afraid that if people in 23 the government get mad at Gather for suing them, they will try to punish the people who use

24 1 Gather’s SSP.” (Id. at 12.) J.A. states he only feels comfortable sharing his declaration if he can 2 remain under pseudonym because he does not want “the government or the police to see this 3 information” nor does he want “people in the public to harass” him. (Id.) 4 II DISCUSSION

5 Though the usual presumption is that parties and declarants will use their real names in a 6 case, the Ninth Circuit allows pseudonyms “in the ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the 7 party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal 8 embarrassment.’ ” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 9 2000) (quoting United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)). These “unusual 10 cases” involve “when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party 11 and the public’s interest in the knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. 12 Generally, the Ninth Circuit has allowed parties or declarants to proceed anonymously: 13 “(1) when identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when 14 anonymity is necessary ‘to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature’;

15 and (3) when the anonymous party is ‘compelled to admit [his or her] intention to engage in 16 illegal conduct.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (internal citations omitted). When determining the 17 need for anonymity to protect from harm, courts look to: “(1) the severity of the threatened harm; 18 (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous party’s 19 vulnerability to such retaliation.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 20 Here, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff leave to file two declarations in support of 21 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in pseudonym is appropriate. The Declarants’ fear 22 of retaliation is reasonable and severe. See Doe 1 v. Noem, No. 2:25-CV-00663-DGE, 2025 WL 23 1434925 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2025); New York v. McMahon, No. 1:25-CV-10601-MJJ, 2025

24 1 WL 1478387 (D. Mass. Mar. 21, 2025); Jones v. Trump, No. 25-401, 2025 WL 485419 (D.D.C. 2 Feb. 13, 2025). The Declarants provide information about their health and addiction struggles, 3 along with their reasons why the disclosure of such private information would negatively impact 4 how they are perceived and treated in their small community. Though the “Court cannot know

5 ex ante how severe,” retaliation or harm would result if Declarants’ names were revealed, and 6 “the Court need not—and will not—expose [Declarants] to a social experiment to find out.” Doe 7 v. Noem, 2:25-CV-00633-DGE, 2025 WL 1295664, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2025) (citing 8 Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1071). Any risk of prejudice to Defendants or the public is 9 far outweighed by the risks to Declarants. Defendants and the public are fully aware of the 10 parties involved in this case, as this Motion involves only Declarants, not Plaintiff. Furthermore, 11 Defendants do not object to Declarants proceeding under pseudonym. (See Dkt. No. 29 at 5.) 12 III CONCLUSION 13 Having considered the instant motion, declarations, and the remainder of the record, the 14 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Declarations Under Pseudonym. (Dkt. No.

15 26.) 16 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2025. 17 A 18 David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24