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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?