New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1-1745

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 22, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2011: #1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
6

NEW SENSATIONS, INC., a California
corporation,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9

ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
DOES 1–1745,
Defendants.
/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 10-05863 WHA

12

On June 21, 2011, pro se defendant Ronald Burr Jr. filed a motion for a protective order,

13

as well as a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a motion to quash or vacate a

14

subpoena, and an affidavit supporting the latter two motions. The motion for a protective order

15

requests permission for defendant Burr to proceed as an anonymous litigant in order to protect his

16

identity. Specifically, defendant Burr wishes to proceed “substantially in the form of ‘John

17

Doe #XXXX (identity protected) . . . .’”

18

Such pseudonyms may be used only in unusual cases when nondisclosure of a party’s

19

identity is necessary to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal

20

embarrassment.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067–68

21

(9th Cir. 2000). Here, defendant seeks “to protect his identity from being disclosed to the

22

Plaintiff and automatically subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of this court.” Defendant’s

23

strategic and jurisdictional concerns do not entitle him to litigate anonymously. Good cause not

24

having been shown, defendant Burr’s motion for a protective order is DENIED. The clerk shall

25

place all four of the June 21 filings in the public docket without redacting any information.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: June 22, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE