DOE v. George Street Photo & Video, LLC

Filing 24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why Plaintiff should be allowed to keep proceeding pseudonymously. Show Cause Response due by 10/6/2016. Order vacating 9/29/2016 Case Management Conference.Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action due by 10/13/2016. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/26/2016. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JANE DOE,

Case No. 16-cv-02698-MEJ
Plaintiff,

8
v.
9
GEORGE STREET PHOTO & VIDEO,
LLC,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ORDER VACATING CMC; SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE; REQUIRING
PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SHE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP
PROCEEDING PSEUDONYMOUSLY

Defendant.

12
13

This matter is currently scheduled for a Case Management Conference on September 29,

14

2016. The parties have filed a Joint Case Management Statement in which they inform the Court

15

that Defendant intends to file a motion to compel arbitration and stay the case pending the

16

outcome of that motion. See Jt. Stmt. at 5, Dkt. No. 23. Given Defendant’s potentially case-

17

dispositive motion, the Court finds setting pretrial deadlines would be premature and accordingly

18

VACATES the Case Management Conference and all related deadlines. Because Defendant has

19

yet to file a responsive pleading in this action, the Court ORDERS Defendant to file its motion to

20

compel arbitration no later than October 13, 2016, Plaintiff to file her opposition no later than

21

October 27, 2016, and Defendant to file its reply no later than November 3, 2016. The Court will

22

hear the motion on December 8, 2016. The Case Management Conference will be rescheduled, if

23

necessary, after the motion is resolved.

24

Defendant also represents that Plaintiff sat for an interview with NBC News regarding the

25

details of this case. Jt. Stmt. at 4. Plaintiff does not contradict this representation. Plaintiff

26

previously requested and was granted permission to proceed under a pseudonym and for a

27

protective order to secure her privacy. Req., Dkt. No. 10; Pseudonym Order, Dkt. No. 15. In its

28

Order, the Court noted that “Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ actions resulted in the mass exposure of

1

the sensitive and highly personal excerpts of her wedding video, leading to the public openly

2

scrutinizing and criticizing her online. She alleges this ‘public shaming’ has caused her great

3

embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress [ ], and while thus far her name is not

4

associated with this video, it is reasonable that she risks further stigmatization and embarrassment

5

if her name is linked to the video.” Pseudonym Order at 4. The Court, however, specifically

6

noted it has “discretion to reevaluate the need to proceed pseudonymously as litigation

7

progresses.” Id. at 4-5. In light of the foregoing, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause

8

why she should be allowed to keep proceeding pseudonymously in this action. Plaintiff shall

9

respond to the order to show cause no later than October 6, 2016.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dated: September 26, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2