Doe
Doe v. City and County of San Francisco
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JANE DOE, Case No. 25-cv-02976-AGT
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. PROCEED UNDER A PSEUDONYM
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRAN- Re: Dkt. No. 2 CISCO, et al., Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to proceed by pseudonym. See dkt. 2. For the reasons identified below, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion is granted subject to recon- sideration when defendants appear in this action. “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Parties may proceed pseudonymously only “in the ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or per- sonal embarrassment.’” Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067– 68 (9th Cir. 2000) (alteration in original) (internal citation omitted). “Because there is a pre- sumption that parties’ identities are public information, anonymity is only proper under ‘spe- cial circumstances when the party’s need…