In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

Filing 903

Order by Judge William H. Orrick denying Defendant's 812 Motion to Compel. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
Case No. 22-cv-03580-WHO

7
8

IN RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE
LITIGATION

9

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 812

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. moves to compel the Doe plaintiffs to proceed using their

13

identities. Dkt. No. 812. This matter is appropriate for resolution on the papers under Civil L.R.

14

7-1(b). The March 26, 2025 hearing is VACATED. Meta’s motion is DENIED.1

15

Rule 10 requires that “the title of the complaint must name all the parties.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

16

10(a). This rule reflects the “paramount importance of open courts” and the “default presumption

17

is that plaintiffs will use their true names.” Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop

18

Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir.2010). “As a general rule, the identity of the parties in any

19

action, civil or criminal, should not be concealed except in an unusual case, where there is a need

20

for the cloak of anonymity.” United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir.2008) (internal

21

quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Doe v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 164 F. Supp.

22

3d 1140, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2016).

23

The Ninth Circuit applies a balancing test to determine whether a party may preserve

24

anonymity in judicial proceedings. Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058,

25

1068 (9th Cir.2000). Because there is a presumption that parties’ identities are public information,

26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs argue Meta improperly filed this motion before me, as opposed to before Magistrate
Judge DeMarchi (who is handling the parties many and varied discovery disputes), and that the
appropriate motion should have sought an amendment of the negotiated Protective Order. Oppo.
at 2-3. I will address the motion on its merits.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

anonymity is only proper under “special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity

2

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

3

identity.” Id. The Ninth Circuit allows parties to use pseudonyms in unusual cases where

4

anonymity is “necessary ... to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal

5

embarrassment.” United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n. 1 (9th Cir.1981). Anonymity can be

6

based on fear of retaliatory harm, the need for privacy, or admission of illegal conduct. Advanced

7

Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068. But the Ninth Circuit has made clear that use of a pseudonym should

8

only be permitted occasionally and in “unusual” cases. Id. at 1067 (“In this circuit, we allow

9

parties to use pseudonyms in the unusual case ....”) (internal quotation marks and citations

10

omitted); Stoterau, 524 F.3d at 1012 (“As a general rule, the identity of the parties in any action,

11

civil or criminal, should not be concealed except in an unusual case, where there is a need for the

12

cloak of anonymity.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Meta argues that this case is not rare or exceptional. It notes that in the UNUM Life case, I

13
14

rejected plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously where he was challenging the denial of

15

disability benefits for serious mental health and physical conditions. See id. at 1147.2 The central

16

issue in that case was denial of insurance benefits. The central issues in this case are whether

17

Meta improperly secured plaintiffs’ private health care information, which raise considerably

18

different concerns. Requiring plaintiffs to proceed using their actual names – when their health

19

care entities have already been disclosed and when their private health care information will be

20

publicly discussed – will arguably cause a further and greater privacy intrusion. See id., 164

21

F.Supp. 3d at 1145 (recognizing the “most compelling situations [in which plaintiffs are allowed

22

to proceed anonymously]” include where “where the injury litigated against would occur as a

23

result of the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity”). That was not the case in UNUM Life. Id.

24

(“[t]he injury litigated against—denial of ERISA benefits—will not occur as a result of disclosing

25
26
27
28

2

In UNUM Life, part of the reason I denied the motion to proceed using a pseudonym was that
“[l]ess extraordinary measures are available to provide a reasonable level of privacy protection,”
(in that case the sealing of the administrative record from public view). Id. at 1147.
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Doe’s identity”).3

2

The precise healthcare information each plaintiff claims to have disclosed to their

3

healthcare providers that was allegedly improperly captured or used by Meta is currently being

4

protected by the parties’ Protective Order and redacted from the operative complaint. See Reply at

5

3-4). That will not be the case once the merits of plaintiffs’ claims are tested. The information

6

plaintiffs provided to their medical providers that was improperly captured or used by Meta is at

7

the very heart of this case. Meta will presumably argue that the specific information disclosed by

8

each plaintiff differs (as possibly relevant to class certification) or is not the type of information

9

protected under the common or statutory laws invoked by plaintiffs (critical to the merits). The

10

medical information disclosed and received by Meta will be discussed in open court when the

11

parties argue about the strength of plaintiffs’ claims, as necessary to allow the public to understand

12

my rulings and possibly a jury’s ultimate determination. But it is unnecessary to publicly link that

13

information with an individual at this stage in the case.
There is no prejudice to Meta from allowing plaintiffs to continue as Does. Amendments

14
15

to the Protective Order have been entered that allow Meta to use plaintiffs’ identities in connection

16

with third-party discovery and with in-house counsel. See Dkt. No. 889 (Revised Protective

17

Order).

18

The public interest also weighs strongly in favor of allowing plaintiffs to proceed

19

anonymously. Requiring plaintiffs who seek to vindicate their privacy rights to publicly link their

20

names to the information they seek to protect – allegedly sensitive information that has not already

21

been widely disclosed – is against the public interest, as it could dissuade plaintiffs from bringing

22

privacy cases. While the plaintiffs’ names are irrelevant to the public’s understanding of this case,

23

the medical information they disclosed is key. See Jane Roes 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 77 F.

24

Supp. 3d 990, 996 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“There is nothing about the plaintiffs’ identities that makes it

25

critical to the working of justice to reveal those identities. Anonymity, in other words, does not in

26
27
28

3

I note that courts in this district have allowed plaintiffs challenging disability benefit denials to
proceed anonymously, depending on the nature of alleged disabling conditions. See Doe v. United
of Omaha Life Ins. Co., No. 23-CV-02307-JST, 2023 WL 5919287, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21,
2023) (collecting cases).
3

1

this case threaten the principle of open courts.”). Precluding members of the public from

2

understanding the exact types of medical information that Meta received – which could be

3

necessary if plaintiffs were forced to identify themselves – would instead undermine the public’s

4

ability to understand rulings and issues at stake in this case.

5

I am denying Meta’s motion without prejudice. The balance of interests may weigh

6

differently if this case proceeds to trial and the Doe plaintiffs testify. Now, at least, the balance

7

tips strongly in favor of allowing plaintiffs to pursue their privacy claims anonymously.

8

Meta’s motion is DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: March 12, 2025

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4