Opinion
23-cv-03406-JD
08-04-2023
A. M., Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER A PSEUDONYM
JAMES DONATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff A.M. alleges claims related to a sexual assault. A.M. asks to proceed pseudonymously and for a protective order directing defendants to file under seal any documents stating her true name. Dkt. No. 3. Defendants do not oppose plaintiff's motion.
A.M. has satisfied the controlling test in Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000). She credibly alleges that she could be subjected to “extreme personal embarrassment” if her true name is made public, Dkt. No. 3 at 4, and has shown that her “need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the party's identity,” Does, 214 F.3d at 1068. Specifically, A.M. states that she needs to maintain anonymity because of the stigma that can attach to survivors of sexual assault, and because of the potential for reprisals from her attacker. Dkt. No. 3 at 4. She also states that public disclosure of her identity “could decimate her recovery.” Id. at 5. A.M. will provide her full name to defendants pursuant to the requested protective order. Id. at 6.
The requests are granted. Plaintiff may proceed as “A.M.” in all publicly filed court documents. Plaintiff will be referred to as A.M. in all pleadings and other documents related to this litigation, as well as in any proceedings that may be held before the Court. Defendants and their attorneys will not disclose plaintiff's identity to any other person or entity. If a situation arises in which disclosure may be necessary to defend against the claims, defendants will meet and confer with plaintiff on a method of proceeding. The Court will resolve any disagreements with respect to the procedure.
This order may be terminated as warranted by future circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.