Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIANFENG LI, Case No.: 26cv1756-LL-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 13 v. EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. PSEUDONYM Department of Homeland Security, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 [ECF No. 3] 17 18 19 On March 21, 2026, Petitioner filed an Ex Parte Motion requesting permission to 20 litigate this action under a pseudonym. ECF No. 3. 21 In the Ninth Circuit, “a party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial 22 proceedings in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs 23 prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the party’s identity.” 24 Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). In 25 making this determination, courts consider the following factors: “(1) the severity of the 26 threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears, and (3) the 27 anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation.” Id. (citations omitted). “The court 28 must also determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to the opposing 1 party, and whether proceedings may be structured so as to mitigate that prejudice.” Id. 2 “Finally, the court must decide whether the public’s interest in the case would be best 3 served by requiring that the litigants reveal their identities.” Id. 4 Petitioner contends that his identity must be concealed because disclosure “could 5 subject him to retaliation within detention facilities, adverse treatment by other detainees, 6 or targeting by third parties.” ECF No. 3 at 2–3. He further argues that this action 7 “necessarily involves disclosure of sensitive personal information, including immigration 8 history, detention circumstances, and potentially protected claims or fear-based facts.” Id. 9 at 3. Petitioner also contends that there would be no prejudice to Respondents because they 10 are federal officials and agencies who already know his true identity. Id. 11 The Court does not find it appropriate to allow Petitioner to proceed under a 12 pseudonym at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner alleges harms that are vague and 13 speculative, with no specific reasons as to why Petitioner would be targeted for harm or 14 adverse treatment in detention facilities apart from his status as a Chinese citizen seeking 15 asylum. However, the Court agrees that Petitioner’s asylum application contains sensitive 16 personal information. To mitigate the risk of disclosing this sensitive information, the 17 Court will allow Petitioner’s asylum application to be sealed, identified as “Tab A” in his 18 Motion for Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 2 at 11–35]. 19 In order to enable the Court to seal Tab A, Petitioner’s counsel must (1) correctly 20 file an amended Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order for public viewing 21 that uploads each exhibit as a separate attachment and redacts Tab A; (2) file a motion to 22 seal Tab A; and (3) lodge the unredacted Tab A under the appropriate event as explained 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 the electronic filing policies and procedures manual. Electronic Case Filing 2 || Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(})-(k) (January 16, 2026), available 3 || at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/rules/local-rules.aspx. 4 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion to proceed under a 5 || pseudonym. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: March 23, 2026 NO 9 Honorable Linda Lopez 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28