Motaghedi v. Blinken ( 2019 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 SADEGH POOZESH, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01466-LJO-SKO 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 8 v. MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS 9 MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al., (Doc. 6) 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 On October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs John Doe, Jane Doe, Daughter Doe, Mother Doe, and 15 Father Doe (“Doe Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to proceed under pseudonyms in this case. (Doc. 6.) 16 The Court allowed Doe Plaintiffs to file under seal four exhibits to the motion, including the 17 declaration of John Doe and Daughter Doe and evidence of their employment with the United 18 States government. (See Docs. 9, 14, 21.) Jane Doe, Mother Doe, and Father Doe are relatives of 19 John Doe and Daughter Doe, who are Iranian nationals and employees of the U.S. government, 20 21 and Doe Plaintiffs fear retaliation from the Iranian government if their identities are made public. 22 (See Doc. 6 at 8.) 23 Defendants appeared in the case on October 30, 2019, (see Doc. 12), and the Court 24 directed Defendants to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, if any, to the motion to 25 proceed under pseudonyms by November 7, 2019. (Doc. 16.) Defendants have not filed an 26 opposition or statement of non-opposition, and the motion is therefore deemed unopposed. 27 28 1 For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.1 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 Because a party’s use of a pseudonym may “run[] afoul of the public’s common law right 4 of access to judicial proceedings,” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 5 1067 (9th Cir. 2000), “[t]he normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real 6 7 names.” Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 8 2010). However, parties may proceed under pseudonyms “in special circumstances when the 9 party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in 10 knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. The Ninth Circuit allows parties to proceed 11 anonymously where protection of the party’s identity “is necessary . . . to protect a person from 12 harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Does I thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at 1067–68 13 (quoting United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)). 14 15 In cases where a party’s request to proceed pseudonymously is based on a fear of 16 retaliation, the district court should consider the following factors: (1) the severity of the 17 threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous 18 party’s vulnerability to such retaliation. Id. at 1068; see also Doe, 655 F.2d at 922 n.1 (using 19 pseudonyms for prison inmate appellant because he “faced a serious risk of bodily harm” if his 20 role as a government witness were disclosed); Doe v. Madison School Dist. No. 321, 147 F.3d 21 832, 833 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (allowing plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym because she feared 22 23 retaliation from the community). 24 The district court has wide discretion to determine whether a party may proceed 25 pseudonymously, and the district court’s decision will not be reversed unless the decision relies 26 on an erroneous view of the law, makes an erroneous assessment of the evidence, or strikes an 27 1 Doe Plaintiffs also request permission to redact their identities in exhibits attached to the motion for preliminary 28 injunction filed October 25, 2019, (Doc. 10). (Doc. 6 at 10.) That request is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 1 unreasonable balance of the relevant factors. See Does I thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at 1069. 2 The Court finds Doe Plaintiffs have shown a compelling need for anonymity through the 3 motion and their sealed declarations and will allow them to proceed under pseudonyms. 4 Specifically, Doe Plaintiffs have shown that the potential retaliation from the Iranian government 5 is severe, Doe Plaintiffs’ fear of retaliation is reasonable, and Doe Plaintiffs are vulnerable to 6 7 such retaliation if their identities and the U.S. government employment of John Doe and Daughter 8 Doe are made public. See Does I thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at 1068; (Doc. 6 at 8–10.) 9 Further, retaliation from a foreign government is recognized by the Ninth Circuit and 10 other district courts as a sufficient basis to proceed anonymously. See Does I thru XXIII, 214 11 F.3d at 1063, 1065, 1071 (considering possible retaliation by the Chinese government against 12 Chinese national plaintiffs residing in Saipan and their family members residing in China as 13 supporting the use of pseudonyms); International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 14 15 TDC-17-0361, 2017 WL 818255, at *2–3 (D. Md. Mar. 1, 2017); Doe v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 16 1:15-cv-01971, 2015 WL 9647660, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2015). Finally, Doe Plaintiffs’ request 17 is unopposed, and Defendants have not shown any reason the motion should not be granted. 18 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 20 1. Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under pseudonyms, (Doc. 6), is GRANTED. 21 2. Plaintiffs John Doe, Jane Doe, Mother Doe, Father Doe, and Daughter Doe may 22 23 proceed in this case under pseudonyms. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: November 15, 2019 /s/ . 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28