Ball et al v. Skillz Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously (ECF No. 10 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (ECF No. 13 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file an amended complaint using her true name no later than 14 days after this Court resolves the Motion to Dismiss, at which time the Court will unseal the certificate of interested parties (ECF No. 12 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 10/14/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Download PDF
Case 2:20-cv-00888-JAD-BNW Document 39 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 Alyssa Ball, et al., 7 8 9 10 Case No. 2:20-cv-00888-JAD-BNW Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Skillz Inc., Defendant. 11 12 Presently before the court is Plaintiff Jane Roe’s Motion to Proceed under a Fictitious 13 Name (ECF No. 10) and her Motion to Seal the Certificate of Interested Parties (ECF No.13). 14 Neither Motion was opposed. Nevertheless, based on the strong presumption in favor of public 15 access to judicial proceedings, the court denies these motions. 16 BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff, Jane Roe, bring claims against defendant for violations of the Colorado 18 Consumer Protection Act and asks this court to allow her to proceed anonymously. She explains 19 that her allegations are inextricably related to her own compulsive gambling, the impact of that 20 gambling on her mental health, the suicidal inclinations she experienced, and the related personal 21 harms she suffered. She explains that her employer does not know of her struggles with gambling. 22 She also notes that her work requires interaction with members of the public who, upon learning 23 about this case, may “weaponize” the information against her in future encounters. She is fearful 24 of being confronted by those around her if this information were to become public and the ways 25 in which this could affect her professional standing. For similar reasons, she also requests that the 26 certificate of interest parties, which contains her name, be allowed to remain sealed. 27 28 Case 2:20-cv-00888-JAD-BNW Document 39 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 3 1 ANALYSIS 2 “Plaintiffs’ use of fictitious names runs afoul of the public’s common law right of access 3 to judicial proceedings.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th 4 Cir. 2000) (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)). Further, Rule 5 10(a) commands that the title of every complaint “include the names of all the parties.” Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 10(a). The Ninth Circuit allows “parties to use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual case’ when 7 nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, injury, 8 ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1067–68 (quoting United 9 States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Ninth Circuit has permitted plaintiffs 10 to use pseudonyms in three situations: (1) when identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical 11 or mental harm, (2) when anonymity is necessary to privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly 12 personal nature, and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit his or her intention to 13 engage in illegal conduct thereby risking criminal prosecution. Id. at 1068. If the plaintiff’s 14 motion to proceed anonymously is based on fear of retaliation, the court evaluates the following 15 factors: (1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s 16 fears, and (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation (4) the prejudice to the 17 opposing party and (5) the public interest. Doe v. Kamehameha School Sch. Bernice Pauahi 18 Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). 19 The court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s past psychological issues and is comforted by her 20 choice to obtain help. Yet, in terms retaliatory mental harm, she provides only conclusory 21 statements about her fears surrounding future interactions she may have with the public as a result 22 of her job and how knowledge about this case might affect her professional standing with her 23 employer, who is not aware of her past gambling history. The information provided is so lacking 24 that the court is unable to weigh any of the Kamehameha School Sch. Bernice Pauahi Bishop 25 Estate factors. And, in today’s environment, a past gambling addiction with accompanying 26 mental health problems is not so out of the norm as to constitute sensitive and highly personal in 27 nature. While there is no identifiable prejudice to defendant in allowing plaintiff to remain 28 anonymous, plaintiff cannot show that the need for anonymity in this case outweighs the public’s Page 2 of 3 Case 2:20-cv-00888-JAD-BNW Document 39 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 3 1 interest in the proceedings. See Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068. Again, this court is 2 sympathetic to Plaintiff’s concerns, but the facts of this case do not overcome the paramount 3 importance of open courts. This court would fail its obligation to the public by allowing the 4 plaintiff to remain anonymous. 5 Given the procedural posture of the case, including defendant’s pending Motion to 6 Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 22) and defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23), the court 7 will allow plaintiff some time before she needs to reveal her identity. 8 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously (ECF No. 10) is DENIED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file an amended complaint using her true 12 name no later than 14 days after this Court resolves the Motion to Dismiss, at which time the 13 Court will unseal the certificate of interested parties (ECF No. 12). 14 DATED: October 14, 2020 15 16 17 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3

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?