Doe v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company Employee Income Protection Plan

Filing 7

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/11/2017: Based on the intensely private facts at issue here and the absence of a compelling interest in exposing plaintiff's identity, the court DISCHARGES its 3 Order to Show Cause and GRANTS Plaintiff's Request for Leave to proceed anonymously. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

No. 2:17-cv-01714-KJM-EFB

JANE DOE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

ORDER

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY EMPLOYEE INCOME
PROTECTION PLAN,

16

Defendants.

17
18
Plaintiff sues her former employer for terminating her long-term disability

19
20

benefits. Because the case involves personal medical information, plaintiff now requests leave to

21

proceed under the fictitious “Jane Doe” name. Request, Sept. 5, 2017, ECF No. 6. As explained

22

below, the case involves intensely personal medical details regarding the in-vitro conception of

23

and gestational surrogacy of her son. The court therefore finds sufficient cause to GRANT

24

plaintiff’s request.

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

1

I.

2

BACKGROUND
In her complaint, plaintiff requested to proceed as “Jane Doe.” Compl., Aug. 17,

3

2017, ECF No. 1. Finding no express justification for the request, the court ordered plaintiff to

4

show cause. Min. Order, Aug. 29, 2017, ECF No. 3. Her timely response outlines the basis for

5

her request. Response, Sept. 5, 2017, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff seeks anonymity because this case

6

will publicize private medical details about the conception and gestation of her minor son.

7

Id. at 1. Plaintiff previously had a medically necessary hysterectomy, which she alleges obliged

8

her and her husband to have their son through in-vitro fertilization and gestational surrogacy. Id.

9

These facts, though ostensibly irrelevant to her long-term disability benefits based on orthopedic

10

and neurological conditions unrelated to infertility, are relevant here because defendants deny the

11

hysterectomy drove plaintiff’s conception decision. Id. This suit, therefore, will expose

12

plaintiff’s private medical records related to these intimate subjects.

13

II.

14

DISCUSSION
Courts assess requests to proceed anonymously using a three-factor balancing test.

15

See Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). The test

16

weighs plaintiff’s need for anonymity against any prejudice such anonymity would pose to the

17

defendant and to the public interest. Id.

18

Anonymity is allowed when necessary “to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive

19

and highly personal nature.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Although the Ninth

20

Circuit has yet to confront a factually analogous anonymity request, Advanced Textile cites

21

several persuasive examples of the types of privacy concerns warranting anonymity. Id. (citing

22

James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 241 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding district judge abused discretion in

23

denying plaintiff’s request to sue anonymously because case would reveal to “particularly

24

vulnerable pre-adolescen[ts]” that their conception was by artificial insemination and that

25

“James” was not their biological father); Doe v. United Services Life Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 437

26

(S.D.N.Y. 1988) (allowing plaintiff to sue insurance company anonymously to protect against

27

identification as homosexual); Doe v. Deschamps, 64 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Mont. 1974)

28

(permitting plaintiff in abortion suit to use pseudonym based on pregnancy’s personal nature));
2

1

but see Doe v. Hallock, 119 F.R.D. 640 (S.D. Miss. 1987) (anonymity not warranted in sexual

2

discrimination and harassment suit against private parties where no privacy interest beyond

3

personal embarrassment identified). The decision is committed to the trial court’s sound

4

discretion. Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1069 (finding district court abused its discretion by

5

denying anonymity request without considering nonresident foreign workers’ vulnerability to

6

retaliation should their identities be exposed).

7

The facts here warrant anonymity. Shielding plaintiff’s identity will prevent

8

unwarranted publication of details related to a woman’s infertility and a minor child’s conception

9

and gestation. Anonymity will not prejudice defendants because they know plaintiff’s identity.

10

Tying plaintiff’s identity to the facts of this case advances no compelling public interest. Rather,

11

the public has a greater interest in this case proceeding to the merits; denying anonymity could

12

drive plaintiff to abandon this case to protect her family’s privacy, thus hindering the public

13

interest. See id. at 1073 (noting this concern).

14

Based on the intensely private facts at issue here and the absence of a compelling

15

interest in exposing plaintiff’s identity, the court DISCHARGES its order to show cause and

16

GRANTS plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed anonymously.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

This resolves ECF Nos. 3, 6.

19

DATED: September 11, 2017.

20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3