Doe v. Samuel Merritt University et al

Filing 29

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT; RESCHEDULING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 4/18/2013 at 09:00 AM, Courtroom F, 15th Floor in San Francisco. Show Cause Response due by 4/4/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 3/21/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13

JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No.: C-13-00007 JSC

v.

16
17
18

SAMUEL MERRITT UNIVERSITY,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
MOTION TO REMOVE
INCORRECTLY FILED
DOCUMENT; RESCHEDULING
HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISSOLVE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendant.

19
20

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remove an incorrectly filed document.

21

(Dkt. No. 27.) Plaintiff argues that two electronically filed documents contain the name of Plaintiff,

22

who is currently proceeding in this litigation under a fictitious name.

23

The Ninth Circuit recognizes that a plaintiff’s use of a fictitious name “runs afoul of the

24

public’s common law right of access to judicial proceedings,” and “[Federal Rule of Civil

25

Procedure] 10(a)’s command that the title of every complaint ‘include the names of all the parties.”

26

Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). “In this circuit,

27

we allow parties to use pseudonyms in the unusual case when nondisclosure of the party’s identity is

28

1

necessary to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Id. at

2

1067-68 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Despite proceeding under a fictitious name, Plaintiff has yet to file a motion seeking relief

3
4

from the public’s common law right of access to judicial proceedings and Rule 10(a)’s requirement

5

that Plaintiff’s complaint include her name. The Court further notes that in many, if not all, ADA

6

access cases, the plaintiff does not proceed under a pseudonym. See, e.g., Enyart v. Nat’l

7

Conference of Bar Exam’rs, Inc., 2010 WL 475361 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2010); Baer v. Nat’l Bd. of

8

Med. Exam’rs, 392 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D. Mass. 2005); Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041

9

(9th Cir. 1999); Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 192 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 1999).
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff to show cause, by April 4, 2013, as

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

to why Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed under a fictitious name. Defendant, if it wishes, may

12

respond to Plaintiff’s response to this Order by April 11, 2013. A hearing on this Order shall be held

13

on April 18, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. 1 Finally, the Court reschedules the hearing on Defendant’s motion to

14

dissolve the February 1 preliminary injunction so that it shall also occur on April 18, 2013 at 9:00

15

a.m.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: March 21, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court apprises Plaintiff that the docket entry at issue is currently locked, and therefore
Plaintiff’s identity is not available to the general public during the pendency of Plaintiff’s motion.
1

2