Doe v. Mariposa County Unified School District ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN DOE, a minor, by and through his Case No. 1:24-cv-01033-BAM Guardian Ad Litem, JANE DOE, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX Plaintiff, PARTE MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER 13 PSEUDONYMS FOR PLAINTIFF, A v. MINOR, AND HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM 14 MARIPOSA COUNTY UNIFIED (Doc. 3) 15 SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding with counsel, initiated this action on August 29, 2024, against 19 Defendants Mariposa County Unified School District (“MCUSD”), Pierce Chaney, and Roes 1- 20 30. (Doc. 1.) On the same date, Plaintiff filed the following: (1) an administrative motion to 21 appoint Jane Doe, Plaintiff’s mother, as the Guardian ad Litem of Plaintiff John Doe; and (2) an 22 ex parte motion requesting permission to proceed under pseudonyms for Plaintiff and his 23 Guardian ad Litem. (Docs. 2, 3.) By contemporaneous order, the Court has granted the request 24 for appointment of Plaintiff’s mother as Guardian ad Litem. This order addresses the ex parte 25 motion requesting permission for both Plaintiff and his Guardian ad Litem to proceed under the 26 pseudonyms “John Doe” and “Jane Doe,” respectively, because this case is based on allegations 27 of sexual abuse of Plaintiff, a minor. (Doc. 3.) 28 Having considered the motion, and for the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s ex parte request 1 for Plaintiff and his Guardian ad Litem to proceed by pseudonyms will be granted, subject to 2 reconsideration when defendants appear in this action. 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names, which is 5 loosely related to the public’s right to open courts and the right of private individuals to confront 6 their accusers. Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th 7 Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). However, courts permit parties to proceed anonymously when 8 special circumstances justify secrecy. Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 9 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Ninth Circuit, a party may proceed with a pseudonym “in the 10 ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary ... to protect a person from 11 harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Id. at 1067-68 (quotation and citation 12 omitted). “[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special 13 circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party 14 and the public's interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. Applying this balancing 15 test, courts have permitted plaintiffs to use pseudonyms in three situations: (1) when 16 identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is 17 necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when 18 the anonymous party is compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, 19 thereby risking criminal prosecution. Id. (citations omitted). 20 DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff requests that he and his mother be allowed to proceed under pseudonyms because 22 this case involves allegations that the local school board and Plaintiff’s high school basketball 23 coach allowed Plaintiff, a minor, to be repeatedly sexually assaulted. (Doc. 3 at 2-3.) Plaintiff 24 asserts that his need for anonymity outweighs the public’s interest in knowing his identity (and, 25 consequently, his mother’s, which would lead to the revelation of Plaintiff’s identity) due to the 26 high risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm. Plaintiff and his family remain residents of the 27 small community where the alleged events occurred, and Plaintiff remains a student within 28 MCUSD. Plaintiff contends there is an obvious risk that Defendants and their allies in the 1 community will retaliate against Plaintiff and his family for attempting to assert his rights. (Id. at 2 3.) Plaintiff further contends that anonymity is necessary to preserve Plaintiff’s privacy regarding 3 highly sensitive and personal matters. Plaintiff will be required to disclose information relating to 4 the alleged sexual assaults he suffered, as well as the aftermath. Plaintiff asserts that being 5 publicly identified would humiliate Plaintiff, subjecting him to further ridicule and potential 6 retaliation. Plaintiff does not believe that proceeding by a pseudonym will be unfair or 7 prejudicial to defendants because, based on the facts alleged, and based on MCUSD’s own 8 internal investigations, Defendants will be able to internally identify Plaintiff. (Doc. 3 at 4.) 9 Plaintiff is only seeking to avoid having his personally identifying information in the public 10 record. 11 At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds good cause to grant the ex parte motion 12 based on the allegations at issue and because of Plaintiff’s representation that his identity can be 13 internally identified by defendants. “Courts have generally permitted plaintiffs to proceed 14 anonymously when their claims involved allegations of sexual assault or rape.” Doe v. Rose, No. 15 CV-15-07503-MWF-JC, 2016 WL 9137645, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2016) (collecting cases). 16 However, the Court will reconsider the issue should defendants object once they have appeared in 17 this action. See Doe #2 v. State of California, et al., No. 1:23-cv-00869-JLT-SAB, 2023 WL 18 3956475, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2023). 19 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 Having considered the motion, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s need for anonymity 21 outweighs any countervailing interests at this time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 22 follows: 23 1. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to proceed under pseudonyms for Plaintiff, a minor, and his 24 Guardian ad Litem (Doc. 3) is GRANTED, subject to reconsideration once defendants 25 have appeared in this action. 26 2. Plaintiff and his Guardian ad Litem shall be permitted to proceed under the 27 pseudonyms “John Doe” and “Jane Doe,” respectively, and are authorized when 28 making submissions to this Court to redact from the public record all personally 1 identifying information. 2 3. Defendants shall not publicly disclose Plaintiff’s name or his Guardian ad Litem’s 3 name, or any information from which their names could be deduced. 4 4. Defendants shall redact from the public record all personally identifying information 5 regarding Plaintiff and his Guardian ad Litem when making submissions to this Court. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: September 9, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28