Opinion
24-cv-00689-RS
03-18-2024
Q. R., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COOPERSURGICAL, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY
RICHARD SEEBORG CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs Q.R. and S.T. brought this products liability case against medical device corporation Coopersurgical, Inc., the Cooper Companies, and associated Does (together, “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants' defective embryo culture media destroyed Plaintiffs' developing embryos. Plaintiffs now move to proceed pseudonymously. Defendants do not directly oppose the motion but ask that Plaintiffs identify themselves to Defendants by providing their full and legal names pursuant to a protective order, so that Defendants may share unredacted documents to third parties such as experts or deponents. For the reasons explained herein, the motion is granted with the caveat that Plaintiffs share their full and legal names with Defendants seven days after entry of a protective order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires a complaint to state the name of all the parties. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(a). Likewise, Rule 17 mandates an action “be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro 17(a)(1). However, the Ninth Circuit permits parties to advance pseudonymously in the “unusual case when nondisclosure of the party's identity is necessary to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). Further, “a party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party's need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the party's identity.” Id. at 1068. “The ‘public interest in understanding judicial process' has supported [the Ninth Circuit's] ‘general history of access.'” Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate; 596 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.2006)). Balancing the public interest inquiry requires an explanation for “how disguising plaintiffs' identifies will obstruct public scrutiny of the important issues in this case.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1072.
The facts in this case pertain to sensitive, personal health and medical matters related to fertility and contraception. Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated how revealing their identities publicly could cause them significant embarrassment or emotional injury because of the sensitive nature of this case. Forcing Plaintiffs to disclose widely their fertility struggles may exacerbate their injury. Furthermore, the risk of prejudice to Defendants is nonexistent as Plaintiffs will be sharing their identities with Defendants to permit them to litigate effectively the claims at issue. While there is a general public interest in the disclosure of parties' identities, Plaintiffs' request is sufficiently narrowly tailored and does not obstruct public scrutiny of the more important issues in this case, that is, the product liability and fertility negligence claims. Rather, the potential chilling effect caused by forcing similarly situated plaintiffs with fertility negligence claims to proceed publicly may, in fact, harm the public interest. Accordingly, the motion is granted, and materials filed with the court that refer to Plaintiffs must do so by the initials Q.R. and S.T. Plaintiffs must disclose their identities to Defendants seven days after a protective order is entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.