Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 A.S., Case No.: 3:25-cv-02876-RBM-VET 14 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING 15 v. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS 16 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior Warden, UNDER SEAL AND MOTION TO Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 17 PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY Respondents. 18 [Docs. 4, 5] 19 20 21 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under 22 Seal (“Motion to Seal”) (Doc. 4) and Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously (“Pseudonym 23 Motion”) (Doc. 5). Petitioner seeks to proceed pseudonymously because of “the 24 persecution that he suffered in Russia and his fear of future persecution if returned to 25 Russia.” (Doc. 4 at 2; Doc. 5-3 [Declaration of Kristina Ghazaryan] ¶ 3].) The motions 26 are unopposed. (Doc. 5-3 ¶ 5.) 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. PSEUDONYM MOTION 2 Although petitioners must typically identify themselves in pleadings under Federal 3 Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), they may “use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual case’ when 4 nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, 5 injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 6 214 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). The Court must 7 “balance the need for anonymity against the general presumption that parties’ identities are 8 public information and the risk of unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 1068. Using 9 this balancing test, courts have permitted plaintiffs to use pseudonyms “when identification 10 creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm.” Id. 11 Petitioner argues that he should be allowed to proceed pseudonymously because he 12 “has a reasonable fear of physical or mental harm if his identity, and information about his 13 asylum claims, are made public during the course of these habeas proceedings.” (Doc. 5- 14 1 at 4.) Petitioner’s sworn declaration states: 15 I am seeking asylum in the United States based on persecution I suffered and 16 fear of future persecution due to my religious beliefs as an Evangelical Christian Baptist, my Ukrainian and German ethnic origins, and my political 17 opposition to the Russian government and its war against Ukraine. . . . After 18 the war in Ukraine began in 2022, persecution against me intensified because of my Ukrainian roots and my public opposition to the war. I participated in 19 peaceful anti-war protests in St. Petersburg, where I was arrested, detained, 20 and beaten by police. I was later threatened by authorities and warned that I would “have problems” if I continued to criticize the government or express 21 support for Ukraine. My name appearing in publicly accessible court records 22 could easily be discovered by Russian authorities or pro-government individuals, who actively monitor and target opposition voices abroad. If my 23 identity is exposed, I fear retaliation against me and my family, who remain 24 in Russia, and the possibility of criminal prosecution under Russian laws that punish anti-war expression and “false information” about the government. 25 26 (Doc. 5-2 [Declaration of Petitioner] at 1–2.) 27 Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated a sufficient need for anonymity. See Al Otro 28 Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, Case No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC, 2017 WL 6541446, at *4 (S.D. 1 Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) (permitting use of pseudonyms based on fear of retaliation by third 2 parties after plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered assault). The other factors the Court 3 must balance do not outweigh this need. The use of a pseudonym here will not prejudice 4 Respondents because Petitioner has already disclosed his identity to counsel for 5 Respondents. (Doc. 5-1 at 2.) Nor will the use of a pseudonym diminish the public’s 6 understanding of the issues or resolution of Petitioner’s claim. Therefore, the Pseudonym 7 Motion (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. 8 II. MOTION TO SEAL 9 Petitioner moves to file the Pseudonym Motion under seal. (Doc. 4.) Petitioner’s 10 “grounds for wishing to file this motion under seal [are] the same reasoning already laid 11 out . . . in the Pseudonym Motion, Petitioner’s Declaration, and his attorney Kristina 12 Ghazaryan, Esq.’s Declaration.” (Id. at 2.) 13 “There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon common 14 law and First Amendment grounds.” The Hon. Ruth Bermudez Montenegro Civ. 15 Chambers R. IV (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Ctr. for 16 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016)). To seal non- 17 dispositive motions, such as the Pseudonym Motion, a party must “satisfy the less exacting 18 good cause standard.” Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d at 1097. Here, for the reasons 19 discussed above, Petitioner has shown good cause for the Pseudonym Motion to be filed 20 under seal. Petitioner has also complied with the undersigned’s Chambers Rules regarding 21 procedures for filing documents under seal. See The Hon. Ruth Bermudez Montenegro 22 Civ. Chambers R. IV-B. Therefore, the Motion to Seal (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. 23 III. CONCLUSION 24 For the foregoing reasons: 25 1. Petitioner’s Pseudonym Motion (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. The parties shall submit 26 all pleadings, briefing, and evidence using Petitioner’s initials instead of his real 27 name. 28 / / / l 2. Petitioner’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court SHALL 2 FILE Doc. 5 to the docket under seal. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || DATE: November 7, 2025 eet Baerrnucle, Mottiryges > 6 ON. RUTH BERM@DEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28