1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 “LILY”, Case No.: 23cv2283-LL-BLM
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED WITH PSEUDONYMS
14 ROBERT JOHN LITTLE, [ECF No. 4] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed With Pseudonyms 19 [ECF No. 4] in this action. For the reasons articulated below, the Court GRANTS the 20 Motion. Defendant has not yet entered an appearance in this action, and this ruling is 21 subject to reconsideration if Defendant appears in this action and subsequently opposes 22 this ruling. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff “Lily” is a victim depicted in a child pornography series and brings this 25 action to recover liquidated damages, fees, and costs, under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) based on 26 Defendant’s conviction for knowing possession of child pornography involving them, in 27 violation of § 2252(a)(4)(B). See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks to proceed under a pseudonym 28 to avoid harassment, injury, ridicule, and personal embarrassment. ECF No. 4 at 1. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe 3 v. Kamehameha Sch., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Does I thru XXIII v. 4 Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). 5 However, in “unusual case[s], where there is a need for the cloak of anonymity,” and “it is 6 necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal 7 embarrassment,” the court may permit parties to proceed pseudonymously. United States 8 v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing United States v. Doe, 556 F.2d 391, 9 393 (6th Cir. 1977)). Thus, a party may proceed anonymously when: “(1) identification 10 creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to 11 preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when the 12 anonymous party is compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, 13 thereby risking criminal prosecution.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068. (internal 14 quotation marks and citations omitted). District courts look to the following factors to 15 determine a party’s need for anonymity: (1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the 16 reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears, the (3) anonymous party’s vulnerability to 17 such retaliation, (4) the prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) the public interest. Id. 18 (citations omitted). 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 Plaintiff asserts that the disclosure of her identity in connection with a series of child 21 pornography videos and images that depict her sexual abuse as a minor are highly personal, 22 intimate, and humiliating. ECF No. 4 at 2. Those videos and images continue to be 23 distributed and traded on the internet, Plaintiff continues to receive notices confirming that 24 fact, and Plaintiff has been stalked and propositioned by numerous individuals in 25 connection with the depictions of her abuse and exploitation. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff continues 26 to suffer psychologically as a result of her identity being exposed, and therefore makes 27 every effort remain anonymous. Id. at 3. Accordingly, she requests to be permitted to 28 proceed under a pseudonym to protect her fundamental interest in privacy. Id. at 8. 1 In support of Plaintiff’s application, Plaintiff also filed a declaration by Carol L. 2 Hepburn, who is counsel for Plaintiff in matters related to her status as a victim of child 3 pornography. ECF No. 4-1. ¶ 1. Hepburn states that Plaintiff seeks to further distance 4 herself from the online child pornography persona with which a different pseudonym was 5 associated [id. ¶ 2], that Plaintiff’s “images are still among the most widely traded child 6 pornography images on the internet” [id. ¶ 3], that child pornography enthusiasts actively 7 discuss Plaintiff using her legal name [id. ¶ 6], that communications made by child sex 8 abuse material (“CSAM”) consumers about Plaintiff “may include speculations on and the 9 possibility of finding out her current whereabouts, appearance, vocations, college, and 10 university attended, and other aspects of her daily life” [id. ¶ 11], that it is not uncommon 11 for individuals to “common on a CSAM victim’s current whereabouts or post other 12 identifying information of a victim such as, the school or university a victim attends, the 13 name of a sports team to which a victim belongs, a victim’s community involvement, or 14 images involving a victim’s friends or acquaintances” [id.], that Plaintiff has severe 15 psychological injuries resulting from being a victim of child pornography crimes [id. ¶ 12], 16 and that Plaintiff lives in fear of consumers of CSAM in which she is a victim seeking her 17 out and attempting to assault her [id.], and that Plaintiff believes that exposing her legal 18 name to the public record puts her in physical danger [id.]. Additionally, both the Motion 19 and declaration note that Plaintiff has been stalked by child pornography enthusiasts and 20 one such stalker was convicted both of transporting her images and stalking her. ECF No. 21 4 at 2, 4-1 ¶ 5. The judgment in that case, United States v. Gregory Hoffman, No. 2:08-CR- 22 27-RCJ-LRL (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2010), attached as an exhibit to the declaration [ECF No. 23 4-2], show that the defendant was convicted of transporting child pornography and stalking 24 under Title 18 of the United States Code, sections 2252A(a)(1) and 2261A(2)(A) [id. at 2]. 25 Considering Plaintiff’s Motion, supporting declaration, and the factors outlined in 26 Advanced Textile Corp., the Court finds that identification of the Plaintiff in this case would 27 create the risk of retaliatory physical and mental harm, and that allowing Plaintiff to 28 proceed under a pseudonym is necessary to preserve her privacy in the highly personal and 1 sensitive matter of her abuse and exploitation. The severity of the threatened harm of 2 revealing Plaintiff’s identity, the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s fears based on their past and 3 ongoing experiences, and Plaintiff’s vulnerability to retaliation, as a victim of sexual abuse 4 in the form of child pornography that continues to be widely circulated, is amply supported 5 by Plaintiff’s allegations, counsel’s declaration, and a prior criminal judgment which 6 highlight the extent to which those factors emphasize Plaintiff’s need to proceed 7 anonymously in this action. Furthermore, Defendant is not prejudiced by Plaintiff’s 8 anonymity, since the only two issues to be decided in a liquidated damages action under 9 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) are victimhood and damages, and the publication of Plaintiff’s legal 10 name has no bearing on those issues. See “AMY” v. Curtis, No. 19-cv-02184-PJH, 2021 11 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71361, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2021). Finally, there is “a strong public 12 interest in maintaining the confidentiality of Plaintiff’s identity, particularly in light of the 13 highly sensitive and personal nature of Plaintiff’s allegations.” Doe v. Oshrin, 299 F.R.D. 14 100, 104 (D.N.J. 2014) (citations omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 “LILY”, Case No.: 23cv2283-LL-BLM
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED WITH PSEUDONYMS
14 ROBERT JOHN LITTLE, [ECF No. 4] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed With Pseudonyms 19 [ECF No. 4] in this action. For the reasons articulated below, the Court GRANTS the 20 Motion. Defendant has not yet entered an appearance in this action, and this ruling is 21 subject to reconsideration if Defendant appears in this action and subsequently opposes 22 this ruling. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff “Lily” is a victim depicted in a child pornography series and brings this 25 action to recover liquidated damages, fees, and costs, under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) based on 26 Defendant’s conviction for knowing possession of child pornography involving them, in 27 violation of § 2252(a)(4)(B). See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks to proceed under a pseudonym 28 to avoid harassment, injury, ridicule, and personal embarrassment. ECF No. 4 at 1. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe 3 v. Kamehameha Sch., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Does I thru XXIII v. 4 Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). 5 However, in “unusual case[s], where there is a need for the cloak of anonymity,” and “it is 6 necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal 7 embarrassment,” the court may permit parties to proceed pseudonymously. United States 8 v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing United States v. Doe, 556 F.2d 391, 9 393 (6th Cir. 1977)). Thus, a party may proceed anonymously when: “(1) identification 10 creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to 11 preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when the 12 anonymous party is compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, 13 thereby risking criminal prosecution.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068. (internal 14 quotation marks and citations omitted). District courts look to the following factors to 15 determine a party’s need for anonymity: (1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the 16 reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears, the (3) anonymous party’s vulnerability to 17 such retaliation, (4) the prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) the public interest. Id. 18 (citations omitted). 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 Plaintiff asserts that the disclosure of her identity in connection with a series of child 21 pornography videos and images that depict her sexual abuse as a minor are highly personal, 22 intimate, and humiliating. ECF No. 4 at 2. Those videos and images continue to be 23 distributed and traded on the internet, Plaintiff continues to receive notices confirming that 24 fact, and Plaintiff has been stalked and propositioned by numerous individuals in 25 connection with the depictions of her abuse and exploitation. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff continues 26 to suffer psychologically as a result of her identity being exposed, and therefore makes 27 every effort remain anonymous. Id. at 3. Accordingly, she requests to be permitted to 28 proceed under a pseudonym to protect her fundamental interest in privacy. Id. at 8. 1 In support of Plaintiff’s application, Plaintiff also filed a declaration by Carol L. 2 Hepburn, who is counsel for Plaintiff in matters related to her status as a victim of child 3 pornography. ECF No. 4-1. ¶ 1. Hepburn states that Plaintiff seeks to further distance 4 herself from the online child pornography persona with which a different pseudonym was 5 associated [id. ¶ 2], that Plaintiff’s “images are still among the most widely traded child 6 pornography images on the internet” [id. ¶ 3], that child pornography enthusiasts actively 7 discuss Plaintiff using her legal name [id. ¶ 6], that communications made by child sex 8 abuse material (“CSAM”) consumers about Plaintiff “may include speculations on and the 9 possibility of finding out her current whereabouts, appearance, vocations, college, and 10 university attended, and other aspects of her daily life” [id. ¶ 11], that it is not uncommon 11 for individuals to “common on a CSAM victim’s current whereabouts or post other 12 identifying information of a victim such as, the school or university a victim attends, the 13 name of a sports team to which a victim belongs, a victim’s community involvement, or 14 images involving a victim’s friends or acquaintances” [id.], that Plaintiff has severe 15 psychological injuries resulting from being a victim of child pornography crimes [id. ¶ 12], 16 and that Plaintiff lives in fear of consumers of CSAM in which she is a victim seeking her 17 out and attempting to assault her [id.], and that Plaintiff believes that exposing her legal 18 name to the public record puts her in physical danger [id.]. Additionally, both the Motion 19 and declaration note that Plaintiff has been stalked by child pornography enthusiasts and 20 one such stalker was convicted both of transporting her images and stalking her. ECF No. 21 4 at 2, 4-1 ¶ 5. The judgment in that case, United States v. Gregory Hoffman, No. 2:08-CR- 22 27-RCJ-LRL (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2010), attached as an exhibit to the declaration [ECF No. 23 4-2], show that the defendant was convicted of transporting child pornography and stalking 24 under Title 18 of the United States Code, sections 2252A(a)(1) and 2261A(2)(A) [id. at 2]. 25 Considering Plaintiff’s Motion, supporting declaration, and the factors outlined in 26 Advanced Textile Corp., the Court finds that identification of the Plaintiff in this case would 27 create the risk of retaliatory physical and mental harm, and that allowing Plaintiff to 28 proceed under a pseudonym is necessary to preserve her privacy in the highly personal and 1 sensitive matter of her abuse and exploitation. The severity of the threatened harm of 2 revealing Plaintiff’s identity, the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s fears based on their past and 3 ongoing experiences, and Plaintiff’s vulnerability to retaliation, as a victim of sexual abuse 4 in the form of child pornography that continues to be widely circulated, is amply supported 5 by Plaintiff’s allegations, counsel’s declaration, and a prior criminal judgment which 6 highlight the extent to which those factors emphasize Plaintiff’s need to proceed 7 anonymously in this action. Furthermore, Defendant is not prejudiced by Plaintiff’s 8 anonymity, since the only two issues to be decided in a liquidated damages action under 9 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) are victimhood and damages, and the publication of Plaintiff’s legal 10 name has no bearing on those issues. See “AMY” v. Curtis, No. 19-cv-02184-PJH, 2021 11 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71361, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2021). Finally, there is “a strong public 12 interest in maintaining the confidentiality of Plaintiff’s identity, particularly in light of the 13 highly sensitive and personal nature of Plaintiff’s allegations.” Doe v. Oshrin, 299 F.R.D. 14 100, 104 (D.N.J. 2014) (citations omitted). The Court finds that “allowing victims of child 15 pornography to proceed anonymously serves a strong public interest in protecting their 16 identities so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes and seeking 17 civil remedies.” Doe v. Dinkfield, No. 2:19-cv-01554-ODW, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18 176357, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2019) (citations omitted). “Thus, any interest that the 19 public may have in knowing Plaintiff’s actual identities is outweighed by their need for 20 anonymity.” Cara v. Salley, No. 2:23-cv-00803-LK, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199161, at *6 21 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2023) (citations omitted). 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons articulated above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff may proceed 24 anonymously because their identification may create a risk of retaliatory harm and the need 25 to preserve their privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature. Advanced 26 Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068. Allowing Plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym keeps 27 with “the tradition of not revealing the names of the victims of sexual assault[.]” Jordan v. 28 1 || Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed With 2 || Pseudonyms is therefore GRANTED. ECF No. 4. 3 Defendant may object or otherwise move for reconsideration of this Order within 4 fourteen days of appearing in this action. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: December 28, 2023 NO
g Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28