J.P. v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 11, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00683
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 J.P., et al., No. CV-22-00683-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States of America,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms. (Doc. 5.) 16 Defendant has been served this Motion (Docs. 6, 8) but has not responded. The Court 17 grants the motion. 18 I. 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires “the title of the complaint must name 20 all the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). This rule reflects the “paramount importance of open 21 courts” such that the “default presumption is that plaintiffs will use their true names.” Doe 22 v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir. 2010). 23 “As a general rule, the identity of the parties in any action, civil or criminal, should not be 24 concealed except in an unusual case, where there is a need for the cloak of anonymity.” 25 United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and 26 citations omitted). 27 But in “special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs 28 prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity,” a 1 party may proceed anonymously. Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 2 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit has identified three situations in which 3 parties have been allowed to proceed anonymously: (1) when identification creates a risk 4 of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy 5 in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is 6 compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking 7 criminal prosecution. Id. “Anonymity, however, cuts against the bedrock principle that 8 courts and judicial records are open.” Jane Roes 1–2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 9 3d 990, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2015); see also Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 10 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). District Courts have broad discretion to determine whether a 11 plaintiff may proceed anonymously. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068; 12 Kamehameha Schools, 596 F.3d at 1045–1046. 13 II. 14 Plaintiffs assert that because their claim involves their history as a victim of human 15 trafficking and sexual assault, they are entitled to proceed pseudonymously. (Doc. 13 at 16 2.) The Ninth Circuit “uniformly allow plaintiffs alleging sexual assault to proceed under 17 pseudonyms.” N.S. v. Rockett, No. 3:16-cv-2171-AC, 2017 WL 1365223, at *2 (D. Or. 18 Apr. 10, 2017); see also Joseph v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993) 19 (complying with the “tradition of not revealing names of the victims of sexual assault”). 20 Nevertheless, license to proceed pseudonymously should be limited “except in an unusual 21 case, where there is the need for the cloak of anonymity. U.S. v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 1155 22 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting U.S. v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1980) (internal 23 quotations omitted). Moreover, “retaliation from a foreign government is recognized by 24 the Ninth Circuit and other district courts as a sufficient basis to proceed anonymously.” 25 Poozesh v. Pompeo, No. 119CV01466LJOSKO, 2019 WL 6052363, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26 15, 2019). 27 Given the Plaintiffs’ allegations of domestic violence by her husband in Guatemala 28 (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 3, 50), and violence perpetrated by Customs and Border Control (id. ¶¶ 59–66), 1 || as well as the sensitive and highly personal nature of the information involved, anonymity 2|| is warranted here. Additionally, Plaintiffs have applied for but not been granted asylum, so || the Court finds a heightened need for confidentiality. (Doc. 5 at 5—6.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant “already knows Plaintiffs’ names” and the extent of their 5 || request is merely “permission to use pseudonyms in publicly-filed documents in this case.” 6|| (Doc. 5 at 6.) Defendant has not filed a response to the motion, and in fact, uses Plaintiffs’ pseudonyms in subsequent filings. (See, e.g., Doc. 15 at 1.) Thus, Defendants will not || suffer prejudice if Plaintiffs proceed pseudonymously. Accordingly, the Court finds 9|| Plaintiffs’ interest in protecting their privacy outweighs the public’s interest in knowing 10 || their identities. See Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068. The circumstances present here fit the special circumstances wherein proceeding under a pseudonym is appropriate. 12 TIT. 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms. || (Doc. 5.) Plaintiffs may continue to use the initials J.P. and L.C. in further filings in this case. 17 Dated this 11th day of July, 2022. 18 Micka To $iburde 0 Michael T. Liburdi 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-