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)
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?