Doe v. Saul

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2021)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

MF,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.

13

ANDREW SAUL,

No. C 20-08742 WHA

14

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING
REQUEST TO PROCEED
PSEUDONYMOUSLY

15
16

Plaintiff, appealing an adverse decision of the Social Security Administration, seeks

17

leave to proceed under her initials, “MF,” to preserve her privacy. Unusual circumstances, the

18

particularities of the subject matter, and the lack of prejudice to the Administrator (who already

19

knows plaintiff’s identity) counsel in plaintiff’s favor. Leave is GRANTED.

20

In general, the public has every right to inspect court records. Nixon v. Warner

21

Commnc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Our court of appeals has established a strong

22

presumption in favor of access. The reasons are plain. Public confidence in the administration

23

of justice rests on accountability — knowing to whom courts afford relief, against whom

24

judgments run, and why. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97

25

(9th Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

26

But public scrutiny has its bounds. Courts may seal select records, such as those tending

27

to spite, scandalize, or irreparably harm. See id. at 1097. And, relevant for our purposes, both

28

the United States Supreme Court and our court of appeals have long recognized the need for

1

certain parties to proceed pseudonymously where identification might subject one to

2

“harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment,” such as an inmate cooperating as a

3

witness, a mother bringing an Establishment Clause claim in a small town, or, famously, a

4

woman seeking an abortion. See United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 fn. 1 (9th Cir. 1980);

5

e.g., Doe v. Madison School Dist. No. 321, 147 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 1998); Roe v. Wade, 410

6

U.S. 113 (1973).

7

In Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corporation, our court of appeals permitted
textile-factory workers in Saipan, who feared deportation to and imprisonment upon arrival in

9

China, to sue pseudonymously for wage and hour violations and articulated the standard for

10

evaluating requests to obscure a party’s name. “[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity

12

outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s

13

identity.” Courts balance the severity of, the party’s vulnerability to, and the reasonable

14

proximity of the threatened harm against any prejudice to the opposing party and public

15

interest in disclosure. 214 F.3d 1058, 1068–69 (9th Cir. 2000).

16

Our subject matter also carries unique considerations. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

17

5.2(c) denies members of the public electronic access to Social Security court records, except

18

for the docket sheet, orders, or opinions. Public inspection may occur in person at the Clerk’s

19

office instead. The Advisory Committee explained that the Rule affords such protection

20

because of “the prevalence of sensitive information” in Social Security filings. Indeed, the

21

Judicial Conference of the United States has urged courts to refer to Social Security appellants

22

by first name and last initial in orders or opinions to safeguard the Rule’s privacy concerns

23

while preserving public access to such decisions. Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, Memorandum,

24

Privacy Concerns Regarding Social Security & Immigration Opinions, Comm. on Court

25

Admin. & Case Mgmt. (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-ap-c-

26

suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. In other words, the baseline here would not be disclosure of MF’s full

27

name, but only of her first name and last initial. So our present question narrows to whether

28

MF may abbreviate her first name as well.
2

1

This order finds that she may. First, there will be no prejudice to the Administrator.

2

MF’s complaint identifies her by the last four digits of her Social Security number and the date

3

of the adverse decision.

4

Second, this order notes that MF has a distinctive name, at least for an English-language

5

based court system, which undercuts the primary purpose of using first names and last initials

6

in Social Security cases. To effectively obscure MF’s identity, per the Judicial Conference’s

7

application of Rule 5.2(c), she should be permitted to proceed by her initials.

8
9

Third, MF articulates a reasonably proximate and significant harm should her identity be
disclosed. At bottom, MF holds a compelling personal privacy interest in the confidentiality of
her medical records. But two other risks manifest. It appears that a toxic, abusive, and high-

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

stress work environment culminated in a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and major

12

depressive disorder with anxious distress and melancholic features about a decade ago. MF

13

has fallen into self-isolation and been unable to work. Her psychotherapist states that, aside

14

from the stigma still attached to mental disability in our society, in her professional opinion,

15

disclosure of MF’s identity would aggravate her already vulnerable mental condition. MF also

16

fears mistreatment or abandonment by her family, from whom she has struggled to hide her

17

condition for the last decade (Dkt. Nos. 6-1, 6-4; 8).

18

While perhaps, for the sake of argument, the harms feared here, MF’s mental distress or

19

her family’s abandonment at the disclosure of her identity, may not be reasonable reactions in

20

and of themselves, that view sidesteps our inquiry. We focus not on the reasonability of the

21

harm itself but, rather, whether a reasonable person would view the threat as credible, whatever

22

it may be — just as our court of appeals found credible and real the unquestionably

23

unreasonable threat of deportation from a territory of the United States to imprisonment in the

24

People’s Republic of China in retaliation for complaints against working conditions. See

25

Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1071–72. So too here. MF faces a reasonably credible threat of

26

harm, without judgment as to the reasonableness of the harm itself.

27

Fourth, the threatened harm here outweighs the public interest in disclosure of MF’s

28

name first name. As the Judicial Conference recognized in recommending that Social Security
3

1

appellants be permitted to abbreviate their last names, the public interest in disclosure here lies

2

in reviewing the conditions that entitle one to Social Security benefits and not in putting names

3

to individual medical records. Indeed, as our court of appeals recognized, “[t]he public also

4

has an interest in seeing this case decided on the merits.” Between the use of a full name

5

dissuading suit and a decision on the merits with abbreviations, the public interest favors

6

resolution of this case on the merits. See Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1073. It is also worth

7

noting that under Rule 5(c), this case is not entirely sealed from the public. One with a good-

8

faith interest in reviewing the records and holding this Court to account will still be able to

9

access the records on file with the Clerk’s office, public health permitting. The change here is

10

simply that we will not be broadcasting MF’s name and records to the public.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The motion is GRANTED. MF may proceed by her initials in all filings. The

12

Administrator shall please do the same, though no records already in existence need be

13

modified. The Clerk shall please update the case caption.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: February 18, 2021.

17
18
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4