N.A. v. Jaddou
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff N.A. moved to proceed under a pseudonym due to safety concerns regarding his identity as a Shi'ite Muslim in Pakistan. The court granted the motion, finding that the need for anonymity outweighed any prejudice to the defendants or the public interest in disclosure.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym is granted.“The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's balancing test for anonymity, weighing the plaintiff's specific safety risks against the prejudice to defendants and public interest. The record indicates the defendants were not prejudiced because they knew the plaintiff's true identity, and the public interest was not significantly harmed as the legal issues remained public. The decision follows from the cited authorities and the facts recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the relevant legal standard from the Ninth Circuit (Advanced Textile Corp.) and applies it to the specific facts of the case. The court addresses both prongs of the balancing test: the plaintiff's need for anonymity (supported by specific safety threats) and the lack of prejudice to defendants or the public (supported by the fact that defendants know the plaintiff's identity and the legal issues are public). The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 N.A., Case No.: 23-cv-01634-AJB-BGS Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING INDIVIDUAL v. 13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO UR M. JADDOU, in her official capacity PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY 14 as Director of United States Citizenship 15 and Immigration Services; and RENA (Doc. No. 2) BITTER, in her official capacity as 16 Assistant Secretary of State for Consular 17 Affairs, Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff N.A.’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. (Doc. No. 20 2.) Defendants have not responded to these motions, and the Court therefore finds them 21 UNOPPOSED pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). For the reasons set forth below, 22 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. 23 District courts have broad discretion in determining whether parties may proceed 24 anonymously. Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 25 2000). Although the “normal presumption is for parties to use their real names,” Doe v. 26 Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010), 27 special circumstances may warrant anonymity, such as claims that involve “sensitive and 28 1 highly personal issues[,]” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068. A party may proceed 2 anonymously if “the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party 3 and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 4 at 1068. 5 Here, Plaintiff may proceed anonymously. Plaintiff bases his motion on the risk of 6 harm to him and his family if their participation in the instant case becomes known to the 7 Pakistani Taliban. (Doc. No. 2 at 4.) Plaintiff has attested that as members of the Shi’ite 8 minority in Pakistan, he and his family members are at risk of being targeted by the Taliban 9 and other armed sectarian groups. (Id.) Based on Plaintiff’s arguments in his motion, these 10 concerns sufficiently warrant anonymity. And since Defendants have not objected or 11 shown otherwise, the Court finds no reason to deny Plaintiff’s request. See Doe v. Samuel 12 Merritt Univ., No. C-13-00007 JSC, 2013 WL 12386844, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2013) 13 (finding that the plaintiff may “proceed under a fictitious name, considering that neither 14 Defendant nor any non-party has objected to Plaintiff proceeding anonymously.”). The 15 fears here appear reasonable, and nothing in the record suggests the contrary. 16 Furthermore, granting the motion to proceed anonymously would cause little, if any, 17 prejudice to Defendants, and the public interest does not weigh in favor of disclosure. First, 18 Plaintiff does not seek to conceal his identity from Defendants or the Court in filing this 19 lawsuit. (Doc. No. 2 at 5.) This reduces, if not eliminates, any prejudice to Defendants since 20 they will know Plaintiff’s name and any necessary information to respond to Plaintiff’s 21 claims. See Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, No. 17-CV-02366-BAS-KSC, 2017 WL 22 6541446, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) (finding the defendants suffered no prejudice 23 because the defendants would know the plaintiffs’ true identities due to an agreement that 24 plaintiffs provide defendants their true names). Second, the public interest does not require 25 Plaintiff to disclose his true identity. Although the public has an interest in open judicial 26 proceedings, “[p]arty anonymity does not obstruct the public’s view of the issues joined or 27 the court’s performance in resolving them.” Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185 (5th Cir. 28 1981) Here, Plaintiff’s name and identity do not affect the resolution of the legal claims in | || this case to promptly adjudicate his family reunification applications, “which will be in full 2 || view of the public.” Nielsen, 2017 WL 6541446, at *6. The Court therefore GRANTS 3 || Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 25, 2023 , 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28