Doe v. Samuel Merritt University et al

Filing 43

ORDER by Magsitrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 27 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document and granting 30 Motion TO PROCEED USING A FICTITIOUS NAME (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2013)

Download PDF
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, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED USING A FICTITIOUS NAME; GRANTING MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT Plaintiff, 14 15 Case No.: C-13-00007 JSC v. 16 17 18 19 SAMUEL MERRITT UNIVERSITY, and CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF PODIATRIC MEDICINE, (Dkt. Nos. 30 & 27) Defendants. 20 21 Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to proceed using a fictitious name 22 (“motion to proceed”), (Dkt. No. 30), and Plaintiff’s motion to remove an incorrectly filed document 23 that contains Plaintiff’s real name (“motion to remove”) (Dkt. No. 27). Plaintiff filed her motion to 24 proceed in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause as to why Plaintiff should be allowed to 25 proceed under a fictitious name. (See Dkt. No. 29.) 26 DISCUSSION 27 The Ninth Circuit recognizes that a plaintiff’s use of a fictitious name “runs afoul of the 28 public’s common law right of access to judicial proceedings,” and “[Federal Rule of Civil 1 Procedure] 10(a)’s command that the title of every complaint ‘include the names of all the parties.” 2 Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth 3 Circuit has identified three situations in which parties have been allowed to proceed anonymously: 4 (1) when identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is 5 necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when the 6 anonymous party is compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby 7 risking criminal prosecution. See id. at 1068; see also Dep’t of Fair Emp’t and Hous. v. Law Sch. 8 Admission Council, Inc., 2012 WL 3583023, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2012). A party requesting to 9 remain anonymous must make an affirmative showing that “the party’s need for anonymity Northern District of California outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” 11 United States District Court 10 Id. Plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously “flows from her desire to maintain privacy with 12 13 regard to her disability that impedes her test-taking ability. . . . [H]er request is necessary to 14 preserve her privacy in this sensitive and highly personal matter.” (Dkt. No. 30 at 3.) Plaintiff 15 asserts that she “is suffering from a disability that carries with it social stigma.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff 16 contends that the “close-knit” nature of the podiatry field, reflected by the fact that there are only 17 nine podiatry schools in the United States, means that public dissemination of her condition poses a 18 great risk that potential employers, medical residencies, and patients would “consider her to be a less 19 competitive candidate despite her academic and clinical achievements.” (Id.; see also Dkt. No. 30-1 20 ¶¶ 4-6.) Further, disclosure of her disability would lead to “stress and severe personal 21 embarrassment which would only exacerbate her condition.” (Dkt. No. 30 at 3; see also Dkt. No. 30- 22 1 ¶ 7.) 23 “[C]ourts within this District have held that where there is a substantial privacy interest, a 24 plaintiff may be allowed to proceed anonymously.” Dep’t of Fair Emp’t, 2012 WL 3583023 at *3. 25 In Department of Fair Employment, the court found that although three individual plaintiffs seeking 26 to proceed anonymously in the class action faced some threat of social stigmatization if their medical 27 conditions—which included Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”) and Attention Deficit 28 Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) diagnoses—were revealed publicly, such stigma “d[id] not reach 2 under fictitious names. Id. (collecting cases). The court found that “DFEH has not shown that these 3 particular conditions are especially uncommon disorders or that they carry a particular risk of social 4 stigmatization. Rather, ADD and ADHD seem a closer analog to some of the more common 5 disorders that courts have deemed to be insufficiently stigmatizing to warrant a plaintiff’s 6 proceeding anonymously.” Id. at *4 (comparing ADD and ADHD to obsessive-compulsive 7 disorder, which has been found to not warrant use of a fictitious name) (citations omitted). As in 8 Department of Fair Employment, Plaintiff has not shown that her Generalized Anxiety Disorder and 9 Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia are especially uncommon disorders or that they carry a particular 10 risk of social stigmatization; instead, Plaintiff simply asserts her unsupported belief that she will be 11 Northern District of California the same level of severity that prior courts have deemed sufficient in allowing plaintiffs to proceed 2 United States District Court 1 stigmatized for having these particular disorders. 12 Plaintiff, however, may still proceed under a fictitious name, considering that neither 13 Defendant nor any non-party has objected to Plaintiff proceeding anonymously. See Dep’t of Fair 14 Emp’t, 2012 WL 3583023 at *4-5 (holding that even though the anonymous plaintiffs faced a level 15 of social stigmatization below that which courts have previously found sufficient to allow plaintiffs 16 to proceed anonymously, the plaintiffs could proceed anonymously because 14 of the 17 plaintiffs 17 were proceeding under their real names and defendant had made “no significant showing” that it 18 would be prejudiced). Further, while the “the public’s interest in knowing the identity of parties to a 19 suit is substantial,” id. at *4, the Court is not persuaded that, based on the record before it, the 20 public’s interest alone outweighs the risk of stigmatization. If circumstances change, however, and 21 the public’s interest is shown to outweigh Plaintiff’s need for anonymity, the Court may revisit the 22 issue at that time. CONCLUSION 23 24 25 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed using a fictitious name, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remove an incorrectly filed document. 26 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 3 1 Dated: April 25, 2013 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?