LK v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 L. K., Case No. 24-cv-00675-LJC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND 10 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., UNDER SEAL 11 Defendants. Re: ECF Nos. 3, 8, 9 12 13 On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed his original Motion for Leave to Proceed 14 Anonymously (Motion). ECF No. 5. On February 20, 2024, the Court issued an order deferring 15 ruling on the Motion. ECF No. 7. Although the Court found Plaintiff’s fears to be reasonable, it 16 could not conclusively determine whether Defendants would be prejudiced, or whether the public 17 interest required disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity. Id. at 2. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to 18 file evidentiary support in support of his contention that Defendants had already been informed of 19 his identity, and to file documentation revealing his identity to the Court. Id. at 3. 20 On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion to Proceed Anonymously 21 (Amended Motion). ECF No. 9. A declaration from counsel filed in support of the Amended 22 Motion attached two exhibits. ECF No. 9-1. Exhibit 1 is a copy of the letter accompanying 23 Plaintiff’s service of summons and the Complaint to Defendants, which disclosed Plaintiff’s full 24 name and alien number. Id. ¶ 2. Exhibit 2 is a copy of a receipt notice issued by Defendant 25 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in connection with Plaintiff’s asylum 26 application. Id. ¶ 3. Concurrently with the Amended Motion, Plaintiff filed an Administrative 27 Motion to File Under Seal (Motion to Seal). ECF No. 8. Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of the 1 Exhibit 2 under seal in its entirety. Id. 2 Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s balancing test in Does I through XXIII v. Advanced Textile, 3 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000), the Court now finds that Plaintiff’s “need for anonymity outweighs 4 [any] prejudice” to Defendants as well as “the public’s interest in knowing” Plaintiff’s identity. 5 Id. at 1067–68. Plaintiff’s need for anonymity is based on the risk to his safety, as a member of 6 the Kurdish minority, from public disclosure of his application for asylum if he is forced to return 7 to Turkey. ECF No. 3 at 2–3. Plaintiff contends that there is also a risk to his family, who 8 continue to reside in Turkey, and who may be targeted because of their connection to him. Id. 9 This weighs heavily in favor of anonymity. See N.A. v. Jaddou, No. 23-CV-01634-AJB-BGS, 10 2023 WL 6238007, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2023) (granting motion to proceed anonymously 11 where the plaintiff and his family, who were members of the Shi’ite minority in Pakistan, were at 12 risk of harm “if their participation in the instant case [became] known to the Pakistani Taliban.”) 13 The Court also believes Defendants will suffer no prejudice from Plaintiff proceeding 14 anonymously. Although Defendants have not yet appeared in this action, and therefore have not 15 had the opportunity to oppose either the Motion or the Amended Motion, Plaintiff disclosed his 16 full name and alien number to Defendants in connection with his service of summons and the 17 Complaint for this litigation. ECF No. 9-3. Defendants thus have all the information they need to 18 easily access Plaintiff’s full immigration case file and adequately prepare their defense. 19 Moreover, as Plaintiff points out, federal regulations which are applicable to Defendants generally 20 prohibit disclosure of information contained in asylum applications without consent from the 21 applicants. ECF No. 9 at 4 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.6). Defendant USCIS has previously published 22 materials regarding these regulations, where the agency acknowledged that “[p]ublic disclosure of 23 asylum-related information may subject the claimant to retalitatory measures by government 24 authorities or non-state actors in the event that the claimant is repatriated, or endanger the security 25 of the claimant’s family members who may still be residing in the country of origin.” Id. (quoting 26 USCIS Asylum Division, Fact Sheet: Federal Regulation protecting the Confidentiality of Asylum 27 Applicants, at 2 (Oct. 18, 2012), available at 1 sheets/Updated_Fact Sheet_on Confidentiality 10 18 12.pdf). Based on this information, the 2 || Court does not perceive any “indication of unfairness” to Defendants if Plaintiff is allowed to 3 proceed anonymously in these circumstances. Doe v. Roblox Corp., 602 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1251 4 || (N_D. Cal. 2022) (permitting plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously despite the plaintiff's failure to 5 file a motion which would have allowed defendant to object on the record). 6 Finally, the Court finds that the “public’s interest in Plaintiff's identity, as opposed to [his] 7 allegations, is low,” and that allowing Plaintiff to continue the litigation anonymously “still 8 || provides the public with continued access to the legal issues and the court’s resolution of those 9 || issues.” See Doe v. Lee, No. C 13-04029 LB, 2014 WL 630936, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014). 10 For the reasons detailed above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion, Amended 11 Motion, and Motion to Seal. Plaintiff may proceed in this action under the initials “L.K.” In all 12 || future filings by the parties, as well as orders or opinions issued by this Court, Plaintiff shall be 5 13 || referred to solely as “Plaintiff” or “L.K.,” or by some other manner that avoids referencing his 14 |) name. Any documents filed on the case docket which contain references to Plaintiff's name shall 3 15 || have such references redacted. Notwithstanding the above, when Defendants appear, they may a 16 || bring a motion for reconsideration of this ruling, if there is evidence of prejudice that they wish the 3 17 || Court to consider. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: March 14, 2024 20

J. CIRNEROS ted States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28