Doe et al v. San Diego Unified School District et al

Filing 47

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part #46 Motion to Excuse Appearance of Minor Plaintiffs at 9/30/2022 Hearing and for Parent Plaintiffs to Appear Anonymously: The minor Plaintiffs are excused from attending the ENE/CMC on 9/30/2022. The Court denies the parent Plaintiffs' request to proceed anonymously at that hearing, as explained in the attached Order. IT IS SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 9/16/2022. (smd)

Case 3:21-cv-01809-LL-MDD Document 47 Filed 09/16/22 PageID.3348 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN DOE, et al.,

12

Case No.: 21cv1809-LL-MDD
Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,

15
16

ORDER ADDRESSING
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO
PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY:
GRANTING WAIVER OF
MINORS’ APPEARANCES &
DENYING REQUEST FOR
PARENTS TO PROCEED
ANONYMOUSLY AT ENE/CMC

Defendants.

17
18

[ECF No. 46]

19
20

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Excuse

21

Attendance of Minor Plaintiffs at Early Neutral Evaluation Conference,

22

and to Permit Parent Plaintiffs to Appear Anonymously filed September 14,

23

2022. (ECF No. 46). The Court excuses the minors’ appearances at the

24

September 30, 2022 Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) and Case Management

25

Conference (CMC); however, as explained below, the Court denies the

26

Plaintiff parents’ request to proceed anonymously at that hearing.

27
1
21cv1809-LL-MDD

Case 3:21-cv-01809-LL-MDD Document 47 Filed 09/16/22 PageID.3349 Page 2 of 5

1

A. Background

2

Plaintiffs are a group of four minors and three parent guardians who

3

filed an amended complaint challenging certain aspects of Defendants’

4

COVID-19 vaccination mandate. (ECF No. 34). In the amended complaint,

5

Plaintiffs identify themselves as: John and Jill Doe, guardians of Jill Doe, a

6

minor; Tiffany Roe, guardian of Terry and Taylor Roe, minors; and Andrew

7

Poe, guardian of Adrian Poe, a minor. (Id.).

8
9

Plaintiffs now ask the Court to excuse the attendance of the minors at
the September 30, 2022 ENE/CMC on grounds that all minors are

10

represented by an adult parent who is representing each minor’s interest,

11

and because the minors have no settlement authority of their own. The

12

Court agrees with this request, and GRANTS that aspect of the parties’ joint

13

motion. The minors are not required to attend the ENE/CMC.

14

Next, however, the Plaintiff parents seek to appear anonymously at the

15

ENE/CMC, with their cameras turned off, using their pseudonymous

16

identities only. (ECF No. 46 at 2). In support of their request, the Plaintiff

17

parents explain that they initiated this action using pseudonymous

18

identities, and they intend to file a motion for leave to proceed as such

19

throughout the case. (Id.). Defendants are not opposed to the Plaintiffs’

20

request for the limited purpose of the ENE/CMC. (Id. at 2-3).

21

B. Legal Standard: Pseudonyms

22

“The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their

23

real names.” Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d

24

1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (requiring the title of

25

every complaint to “name all the parties”). “This presumption is loosely

26

related to the public’s right to open courts, and the right of private

27

individuals to confront their accusers.” Kamehameha, 596 F.3d at 1042
2
21cv1809-LL-MDD

Case 3:21-cv-01809-LL-MDD Document 47 Filed 09/16/22 PageID.3350 Page 3 of 5

1

(citations omitted). To proceed under a pseudonym, a plaintiff must seek

2

leave of the Court. Aellis O. v. Connor, No. 22-CV-200 JLS (WVG), 2022 WL

3

2229421, at *3 n.1 (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2022).

4

“The Ninth Circuit allows parties to use pseudonyms in unusual cases

5

where anonymity is ‘necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment,

6

injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Doe v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of

7

Am., 164 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting United States v.

8

Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1980)); Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced

9

Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In this circuit, we

10

allow parties to use pseudonyms in the unusual case . . . .”) (citations and

11

quotation marks omitted); United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th

12

Cir. 2008) (“As a general rule, ‘the identity of the parties in any action, civil

13

or criminal, should not be concealed except in an unusual case, where there is

14

a need for the cloak of anonymity.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted);

15

Doe v. Ayers, 789 F.3d 944, 946 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting that the use of a

16

pseudonym was proper because of the case’s exceptional nature). To test

17

whether use of a fictious name is appropriate, courts ask whether “the party’s

18

need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the

19

public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Advanced Textile Corp.,

20

214 F.3d at 1068.

21

To determine whether to allow a party to proceed anonymously, a

22

district court must balance five factors: “(1) the severity of the threatened

23

harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears, . . . (3) the

24

anonymous party’s vulnerability to . . . retaliation, (4) the prejudice to the

25

opposing party, and (5) the public interest.” Kamehameha, 596 F.3d at 1042.

26

District courts place particular emphasis on the first and second factors. Id.

27

at 1043.
3
21cv1809-LL-MDD

Case 3:21-cv-01809-LL-MDD Document 47 Filed 09/16/22 PageID.3351 Page 4 of 5

1

C. Discussion

2

The Chambers’ Rules in this Court require parties to appear in-person

3

(via Zoom video technology) for all Early Neutral Evaluation settlement

4

conferences absent a showing of good cause as to why they cannot do so. See

5

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin, Civ. Chambers R. IV(B). The present motion fails

6

to articulate a basis for the Plaintiffs’ request to proceed anonymously, except

7

to state that Plaintiffs intend to seek approval from the district court in order

8

to proceed in the case using only pseudonyms. (ECF No. 46).

9

In the absence of stated grounds for overcoming this Court’s

10

requirement for personal appearance at a settlement conference, or the

11

presumption that parties must proceed with their real names in litigation

12

(and the minors’ initials pursuant to Federal Rule 5.2(a)(3)), the Court has

13

considered the amended complaint that asserts:

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

The Plaintiffs all seek to proceed pseudonymously in this case for
fear of retaliation and harassment by SDUSD officials, teachers, or
students.
(ECF No. 34 ¶ 29). The Court also notes that Plaintiffs previously filed a
motion to appear pseudonymously together with their motion for a temporary
restraining order. (ECF No. 7 [filed 11/1/2021]).
District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo denied the request for a
temporary restraining order and advised Plaintiffs that their application to
proceed pseudonymously was more suitable for a separate motion. (ECF No.
20 at 10 [filed 11/18/2021]). Judge Bencivengo permitted the parties to
proceed anonymously for purposes of filing an immediate appeal, but she
explained that “the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs have overcome the
presumption that parties must use their real names in litigation.” (Id. at 10
& n.5) (citing Kamehameha, 596 F.3d at 1042).
4
21cv1809-LL-MDD

Case 3:21-cv-01809-LL-MDD Document 47 Filed 09/16/22 PageID.3352 Page 5 of 5

1

To date, Plaintiffs have provided no additional information on this

2

issue. In the absence of such information, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have

3

failed to establish good cause for appearing anonymously for the Court’s ENE

4

on September 30, 2022. Because the district court, rather than this Court,

5

must balance the factors relevant for determining whether it is appropriate

6

for the parties to proceed pseudonymously, the parties may alternatively

7

consider filing a joint motion to continue the ENE/CMC until after the

8

district court resolves the pseudonym issue. Until then, the Court DENIES

9

the joint motion for the Plaintiff parents to proceed anonymously during the

10

September 30, 2022 Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management

11

Conference.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: September 16, 2022

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5
21cv1809-LL-MDD