Roe v. California Department of Developmental Services et al

Filing 15

Order by Hon. William H. Orrick granting 5 Administrative Motion to proceed anonymously. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

JANE ROE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Case No. 16-cv-03745-WHO
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO COMMENCE AND
PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

Defendants.

12

Re: Dkt. No. 5

Plaintiff Jane Roe, who suffers from a developmental disability and mental illness, asserts

13

that under the care of defendants she was sexually abused and raped by defendant Rex Bradford

14

Salyer. As a result of this abuse, Roe alleges violations of her rights under the United States

15

constitution, federal statutory law, and state statutory law.

16

Ordinarily, pleadings must identify the parties to a suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).

17

Nevertheless, “a party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special

18

circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and

19

the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile

20

Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). In evaluating the need for anonymity, the court

21

considers: (1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s

22

fears; (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to retaliation; and (4) the prejudice to the opposing

23

party and whether proceedings may be structured to avoid that prejudice. Id. Additionally, the

24

court “must decide whether the public’s interest in the case would be best served by requiring that

25

the litigants reveal their identities.” Id.

26

Here, the matters raised by the complaint are of a sufficiently sensitive and personal nature

27

to justify the use of a pseudonym. See Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)

28

(recognizing that “sexual assault victims are a paradigmatic example of those entitled to a grant of

1

anonymity”). In addition, defendants will not be prejudiced if Roe proceeds anonymously. Roe

2

acknowledges that due to the nature of her claims, defendants may require discovery of her

3

medical records and other personal information. She represents that she would be willing to

4

stipulate to protective orders or other mechanisms to allow discovery to proceed agreeably.

5

Lastly, non-disclosure of plaintiff’s identify will not obstruct public scrutiny of the important

6

issues in this case. See Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1072.

7

Roe’s Motion for Leave to Commence and Proceed Anonymously is GRANTED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: July 25, 2016
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2