M.F. v. Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01009
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 M.F., a minor, by and through his guardian ad Case No.: 2:24-cv-01009-JDP litem, JOHN DOE; JOHN DOE and 15 VANESSA DOE, [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO PROCEED BY 16 Plaintiffs, PSEUDONYMS 17 v. 18

19 SIERRA-PLUMAS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL 20 DISTRICT, a public entity; EMMA BLANCHE SHAFFER, an individual, MEGAN ANN 21 MESCHERY, individually and in her capacity as Principal of Loyalton High School, and 22 ROES 1 through 40, inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25

26 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 On April 1, 2024, M.F., John Doe, and Vanessa Doe (“Plaintiffs”), filed a Complaint for 3 Damages. (ECF No. 1). On April 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Proceed by Pseudonyms in 4 place of their true and correct names. (ECF Nos. 3, 3-1). 5 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. 6 Kamehameha Sch., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the Ninth Circuit has allowed 7 parties to use pseudonyms “in the ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is 8 necessary … to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.” 9 Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 10 United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981).) “[A] party may preserve his or her 11 anonymity in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity 12 outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” 13 Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068. “Applying this balancing test, courts have permitted 14 plaintiffs to use pseudonyms… when anonymity is necessary is necessary to preserve privacy in 15 a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature…”. (Id. For example, “[c]ourts have generally 16 permitted plaintiffs to proceed anonymously when their claims involved allegations of sexual 17 assault or rape.” Doe v. County of San Joaquin (E.D. Cal., Mar. 29, 2024, No. 2:24-CV-00899- 18 CKD) 2024 WL 1344677, at *1; see also Doe v. Rose, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188930, at *3-5 19 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2016) (collecting cases); see e.g., J.I. v. United States, 2018 US Dist. LEXIS 20 49646, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018); Roe v. Puig, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115728, at *7-9 (C.D. 21 Cal. May 17, 2021); Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1993) (observing 22 “tradition of not revealing names of the victims of sexual assault”). 23 The Court finds that this case involves allegations of sexual assault of M.F., a minor, 24 based on the review of the allegations of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 25 26 27 28 1 GOOD CAUSE appearing, the Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to 2 || Proceed by Pseudonyms M.F., “John Doe,” and “Vanessa Doe.” 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: _ April 29, 2024 __ Vea, Dis — 7 JEREMY D,. PETERSON g UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28