Beitzel v. Becerra ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 GEORGE BEITZEL and K.K., on No. 2:23-cv-01932 WBS DB behalf of themselves and all 13 others similarly situated, 14 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: MOTION TO PROCEED WITH PARTIAL ANONYMITY 15 v. 16 XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiff K.K. has filed a Motion to Proceed with 22 Partial Anonymity. (Docket No. 4.) Plaintiff K.K. requests that 23 she be able to proceed by her initials in all public filings in 24 this case because the filing “will contain sensitive and personal 25 information about her rare and severe medical conditions that she 26 has disclosed to very few people, as well as the mental distress 27 and suffering she has experienced relating to her medical 28 conditions and the events underlying this case.” (Docket No. 4 1 at 1; 4-1 (K.K. decl.).) Specifically, she does not want to 2 disclose to the public her medical history of severe psoriasis, 3 psoriatic arthritis, and arthritis mutilans, which would cause 4 her “emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, and potential 5 harassment.”1 (Docket Nos. 4; 4-1 at ¶ 13.) She notes that her 6 identity has already been disclosed to defendant and she only 7 wishes to remain anonymous to the general public. 8 Allowing a party to proceed anonymously runs counter to 9 the public’s right of access to judicial proceedings. Does I 10 thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th 11 Cir. 2000). However, the Ninth Circuit has allowed parties to 12 use pseudonyms “in the unusual case when nondisclosure of the 13 party’s identity is necessary to protect a person from 14 harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Id. at 15 1067-68 (cleaned up). In determining whether to allow a party to 16 proceed anonymously, the court looks to whether “the party’s need 17 for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the 18 public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. 19 Here, there is no prejudice to the Secretary if K.K. 20 uses only her initials in all public filings. On the other hand, 21 the court finds that there is little risk of harassment, injury, 22 or ridicule to K.K. if she has to disclose her identity in court 23 filings. The court is sympathetic to K.K.’s claims that she will 24 suffer embarrassment and mental distress if she is required to 25 disclose her name and by extension her medical condition to the 26 public. However, the court finds that that risk is outweighed by 27 1 Plaintiff K.K. also wishes to avoid disclosing details 28 of her finances to the public. (Docket No. 4-1 ¶¶ 12-13.) 1 the need for the public to know the identities of the named 2 plaintiffs in this case. 3 The Ninth Circuit has noted that courts have allowed 4 plaintiffs to use pseudonyms “when anonymity is necessary ‘to 5 preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal 6 nature.’” See Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068 (citing 7 James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238 (4th Cir. 1993); Doe v. United 8 Services Life Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 9 (allowing plaintiff to sue insurance company anonymously to 10 protect against identification as a homosexual); Doe v. 11 Deschamps, 64 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Mont. 1974) (permitting 12 plaintiff in abortion suit to use pseudonym)). The risk of 13 stigmatization, harassment, or embarrassment here does not rise 14 to the level presented in cases such as United Services Life 15 Insurance Co., 123 F.R.D. at 439, and Deschamps, 64 F.R.D. at 16 653, given public sentiments at the time of those cases. 17 No doubt most litigants would prefer not to have their 18 medical problems published in the public records. However, that 19 is a foreseeable consequence of bringing a lawsuit in which those 20 conditions are relevant. Allowing plaintiff to proceed 21 anonymously here would open the door to allowing plaintiffs in 22 many other cases in which their medical condition is in issue to 23 do the same, precluding the public from fully understanding the 24 facts and circumstances of their cases. This action involves an 25 important issue to the public -- whether the federal Medicare 26 program should pay for allegedly critical outpatient medical 27 treatments. The public’s understanding of this case is furthered 28 by knowing which individuals are affected by Medicare’s current nnn nnn ene en en nn on nn nn nn nnn nen ne ON OE ISSN 1 practices and how they are affected. 2 Accordingly, plaintiff K.K.’s motion to proceed with 3 partial anonymity (Docket No. 4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 For the same reasons, plaintiff K.K’s request to seal her 5 unredacted declaration, which contains her signature (Docket No. 6 5), is also DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | Dated: January 11, 2024 tleom ah. A. be—~ 9 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28