Doe v. Stanford University

Filing 9

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 3 plaintiff's Motion to Proceed under Pseudonym. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2016)

Case 5:16-cv-02228-HRL Document 9 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

STANFORD UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

16
17

Case No. 5:16-cv-02228-HRL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER
PSEUDONYM
Re: Dkt. No. 3

In this lawsuit, plaintiff John Doe claims that he was falsely accused of rape and wrongly

18

disciplined while he was a student at Stanford University. Given the explicit allegations contained

19

in the complaint, he moves for leave to proceed anonymously, arguing that he reasonably fears

20

ridicule, harassment, as well as retaliation in seeking employment, educational opportunities, and

21

housing.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

Case 5:16-cv-02228-HRL Document 9 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 3

1

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

2

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

3

the litigants reveal their identities.” Id.

4

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

5

such that the use of a pseudonym is appropriate “to protect a person from harassment, injury,

6

ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Id. Plaintiff’s counsel represents to the court that defendant

7

has no objection to plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously. The gravamen of the complaint is

8

that defendant allegedly did not treat plaintiff fairly in addressing the rape accusation. Non-

9

disclosure of plaintiff’s identity will not obstruct public scrutiny of the issues in this case.
Plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously is granted.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: May 5, 2016

13
14
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

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

Case 5:16-cv-02228-HRL Document 9 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 3

1

5:16-cv-02228-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

James Andrew Quadra

3

Rebecca Coll

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3