Doe v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 3 Plaintiff's Ex parte/Administrative Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,

5

8

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM

vs.

6
7

CASE NO. 17-cv-03963-YGR

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

DKT. NO. 3

Defendant.
9
Plaintiff, appearing anonymously as John Doe, initiated this action on July 13, 2017

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

against defendant Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, alleging violations of the Employee

12

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(1)(B). (Dkt. No.

13

1, “Compl.”) Specifically, plaintiff alleges that, since June 12, 2013, he has been disabled, as

14

defined under the Marin Individual Practice Association Long Term Disability Plan (the “Plan”),

15

due to “multiple serious physical health problems, including HIV and HIV associated

16

neurocognitive decline,” yet defendant terminated his claims under the Plan effective September 9,

17

2015. (Id. at ¶¶ 8–10.)
Concurrently with the filing of his complaint, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion seeking

18
19

leave from the Court to proceed under a pseudonym due to the sensitive and confidential nature of

20

his HIV and psychiatric health issues. (Dkt. No. 3.) Having reviewed the pleadings and plaintiff’s

21

motion, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to proceed under

22

a pseudonym.
In the Ninth Circuit, a “party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in

23
24

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

25

party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Does I thru XIII v. Adv. Textile

26

Corp., 213 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Put simply, courts must weigh (i) the party’s need for

27

anonymity against (ii) the risk of prejudice to defendant and (iii) the public’s interest in the case.

28

Id.

1

First, in determining the party’s need for anonymity, courts evaluate: “(1) the severity of
the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears; and (3) the

3

anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Courts have

4

recognized the stigma and risks associated with public disclosure of one’s HIV status in granting

5

motions to proceed anonymously. See, e.g., Doe v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, No. 16-CV-

6

6950-KAW, 2017 WL 1508982, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2017) (“The Court also concludes that

7

the use of a pseudonym is appropriate to protect Plaintiff from injury or personal embarrassment,

8

based on Plaintiff’s HIV-positive status.”).1 Here, plaintiff fears that “proceeding under his true

9

name would expose [him] to harassment, embarrassment and discrimination” and he represents

10

that he has “maintained the confidentiality of his HIV and psychiatric health issues,” except to a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

limited circle of family, friends, medical personnel, and insurers. (Dkt. No. 3 at 2.) Although

12

public discourse, understanding, and acceptance of such issues has improved in recent years, the

13

Court recognizes that society continues to place at least some stigma on those diagnosed with

14

HIV, and fear of negative treatment due to HIV remains reasonable and understandable.

15

Moreover, plaintiff’s decision to maintain the confidentiality of his status implicates significant

16

privacy concerns that demonstrate plaintiff’s need for anonymity. See City and Cty. of San

17

Francisco, 2017 WL 1508982, at *2.

18

Second, in evaluating the prejudice to defendant, the Ninth Circuit instructs district courts

19

to “determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to the opposing party, and

20

whether proceedings may be structured so as to mitigate that prejudice.” Advanced Textile Corp.,

21

214 F.3d at 1068. The Court finds that no such prejudice exists at this juncture. Plaintiff has

22

provided sufficient information in the complaint, such as his claim number and the dates of his

23

communications with defendant, to allow defendant to ascertain his identity. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8–13.)

24
25
26
27
28

1

See also Roe v. City of Milwaukee, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1129 (E.D. Wisc. 1999) (“I
believe that in modern society one’s HIV-positive status, unlike most other medical conditions, is
still considered a stigma. The plaintiff’s HIV-positive status cannot be viewed as a ‘common
disorder’ such that disclosure can be viewed as inconsequential.”); Patient v. Corbin, 37 F. Supp.
2d 433, 434 (E.D. Va. 1998) (“Being HIV positive carries a significant stigma in many parts of
today’s society. Given the increase in public access to court docket sheets, public disclosure of
plaintiff and her husband’s identities could subject them to public vilification.”).
2

1

Defendant, therefore, has no need for plaintiff to disclose the same in a public forum. The Court

2

acknowledges that defendant has yet to be served and has, therefore, not had the opportunity to

3

respond to plaintiff’s motion. Should defendant identify any prejudice that would attach as a

4

result of plaintiff’s prosecution of this action anonymously, defendant may raise such issues so

5

that the Court may evaluate the propriety of continuing to allow the action to proceed

6

anonymously or whether any such prejudice may be mitigated.

7

Finally, the Court evaluates whether the public’s interest “would be best served by

8

requiring that the [plaintiff] reveal his identit[y].” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068. The

9

Court finds that the public interest is not advanced by publication of plaintiff’s identity here. The
public need not know plaintiff’s real name to understand the nature of his claims or the legal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

proceedings in this action. Rather, the Court finds that the public interest is better served by

12

allowing plaintiff to advance anonymously, rather than subject him to the uncomfortable position

13

either of dismissing what may be legitimate claims or publicly disclosing highly confidential

14

medical information that may place him in harm’s way.

15

Thus, the Court finds that plaintiff’s need for anonymity outweighs any prejudice to

16

defendant at this stage of the proceedings or the public’s interest in disclosure of his identity.

17

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s ex parte motion to proceed anonymously.

18

This Order terminates Docket Number 3.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: July 26, 2017
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3