Doe v. United Airlines, Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER Denying 12 Stipulation re Protective Order. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
JANE DOE,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02825-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 12)

16

Pending before the Court is a stipulated protective order. Docket No. 12. As a threshold matter,

17

the parties seek to keep confidential the plaintiff’s identity. See id. at 2. No motion has been filed

18

seeking leave for Plaintiff to proceed in this matter pseudonymously. When a Plaintiff seeks to proceed

19

with a lawsuit using a pseudonym, she must file a motion seeking permission to do so and must address

20

the applicable standards. See, e.g., 4 Exotic Dancers v. Spearmint Rhino, 2009 WL 250054, *1 (C.D.

21

Cal. Jan. 29, 2009). Moreover, the stipulated protective order fails to include legal authority or

22

meaningfully developed argument that pseudonymity is appropriate here. Accordingly, the stipulated

23

protective order is hereby DENIED without prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to proceed in this

24

case pseudonymously, she must file a proper motion seeking such relief and addressing the applicable

25

standards.1 Any such motion shall be filed within seven days of the issuance of this order, and shall be

26
27
28

1

The Court is not opining herein on whether grounds exist for pseudonymity, but rather only that
a proper motion must be filed supported by legal authority and meaningfully developed argument.

1

filed separately from any stipulation for the entry of a blanket protective order by which the parties may

2

seek to designate discovery materials as confidential.2

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: February 14, 2018

5
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The stipulated protective order provides in some detail the grounds on which the parties believe
certain information merits confidential treatment. See Docket No. 12 at 2-4. In reviewing a stipulated
protective order, the Court will not be making any determination that any particular information warrants
secrecy. Doing so would be impossible, as the Court does not have the actual documents to review. Instead,
the Court will simply be providing a mechanism by which the parties may (in good faith) designate
information as confidential. The Court does not put its imprimatur on such designation. Accordingly, to
avoid confusion, any renewed stipulated protective order should omit discussion of the grounds on which
the parties believe they may designate information as confidential and should focus instead solely on the
mechanism by which they may do so.
2