S.K. et al v. Jupiter Research, LLC et al

Filing 11

ORDER ON 3 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY. Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 1/8/2025. (svklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2025)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

S.K., et al.,

Case No. 24-cv-09090-SVK
Plaintiffs,

7

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY

v.

8
9

JUPITER RESEARCH, LLC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 3

Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under pseudonyms and for a protective

12
13

order. Dkt. 3 (the “Motion”). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the Motion

14

without prejudice to any Defendant’s ability to seek to unseal Plaintiffs’ identities once the

15

Defendants appear in this action.

16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

Plaintiffs are three individuals who have indirectly purchased vaporized cannabis oil from

18

Defendants. See Dkt. 1 (complaint) ¶¶ 18-30. They claim that they paid supercompetitive prices

19

for such products as a result of Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct. See generally Dkt. 1.

20

Shortly after filing the complaint, Plaintiffs filed the Motion, seeking permission to

21

proceed pseudonymously in this case “due to the significant risk of social stigma, retaliatory

22

physical and mental harm, and to protect them from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal

23

embarrassment.” Dkt. 3 at 3. Plaintiffs state that their identities will be disclosed to Defendants

24

under an anticipated protective order. Dkt. 5.

25

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

26

“The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v.

27

Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations

28

omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all parties”).

1

However, parties may “proceed anonymously when special circumstances justify secrecy.” Does I

2

thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).

3

Specifically, parties may “use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s

4

identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal

5

embarrassment.’” Id. at 1067-68 (citations omitted).
“[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6
7

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

8

the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1067. “The Ninth Circuit has

9

identified three circumstances where this may be the case: (1) when identification creates a risk of

10

retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a

11

matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled

12

to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution.”

13

M.J.R. v. United States, No. 23-cv-05821-VKD, 2023 WL 7563746, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14,

14

2023) (citing Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068). “When a party fears retaliation, the

15

court balances: (1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous

16

parties’ fears, (3) the anonymous party's vulnerability to retaliation, (4) the prejudice to the

17

opposing party, and (5) whether the public's interest in the case requires that litigants reveal their

18

identities.” M.J.R., 2023 WL 7563746, at *1 (citing Kamehameha, 596 F.3d at 1042).

19

III.

DISCUSSION

20

In the Motion, Plaintiffs have addressed the relevant factors that support allowing them to

21

proceed anonymously in this case. A court in this District has held that associating a Plaintiff with

22

a combination of mental conditions including substance use disorder “would necessarily expose

23

Plaintiff to social stigma and would threaten future job opportunities that he may pursue.” Doe v.

24

United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., No. 23-cv-02307-JST, 2023 WL 5919287, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug.

25

21, 2023). Although Plaintiffs in the present case do not allege that they suffer from a substance

26

use disorder or other mental conditions, they nevertheless assert that disclosure of their identities

27

“will expose Plaintiffs to severe social stigmas surrounding cannabis use, associating them

28

unnecessarily with substance abuse or substance abuse disorder.” Dkt. 3 at 5. Plaintiffs argue that
2

1

their fear of harm, including social stigma and professional setbacks, are reasonable “[g]iven the

2

strong beliefs that are often tied to cannabis consumption.” Id. at 5-6.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants will not be prejudiced if Plaintiffs are permitted to proceed

3
4

anonymously because Plaintiffs’ identities will be disclosed to Defendants under a forthcoming

5

protective order. Dkt. 3 at 6. Under such circumstances, pseudonymity may not “impede

6

Defendants’ ability to develop their case.” United of Omaha, 2023 WL 5919287, at *1.
Plaintiffs also explain that the public interest will not be harmed if they are permitted to

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

proceed pseudonymously because their identities are not central to the issues raised in this

9

litigation and because forcing them to litigate stigmatizing claims publicly would disincentivize

10

litigants from challenging anticompetitive practices such as those alleged here. See Dkt. 3 at 6-7.

11

Plaintiffs also represent that “[t]he parties will need to only redact Plaintiffs’ names and other

12

identifying information, while allowing pleadings, briefs, and relevant documents to be submitted

13

publicly, which promotes public access to the record as a whole.” Id. at 7. Such considerations

14

weigh in favor of allowing Plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously. See United of Omaha,

15

2023 WL 5919287, at *2.

16

IV.

17

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion. However, Defendants have

18

not yet appeared in this case or had an opportunity to be heard on the issues raised by the Motion.

19

This order is without prejudice to a later motion by any Defendant seeking to unseal the Plaintiffs’

20

identities. See, e.g., Doe v. Risch, No. 18-cv-04583-SBA, Dkt. 14 at 2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2018).

21

Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, Plaintiffs may continue to identify themselves in this

22

action using their initials, all filings on the docket may reference Plaintiffs using only their initials,

23

and no Party may publicly disclose Plaintiffs’ identities.

24

SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: January 8, 2025

26
27
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

28
3