G.

I. BACKGROUND

N.G. and his parents Daniel G. and Molly G. (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought this action alleging Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., by denying insurance coverage for care N.G. received as a minor (ECF 2). Because Plaintiffs filed this case using initials and partial names, the court ordered them to file either an amended complaint under their full names or a motion for leave to proceed under initials (ECF 15). Plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed under initials (ECF 16). Defendants failed to file a response to the Motion, and the time for doing so has passed. See DUCivR 7-1(a)(4)(D)(ii) (“A response to a motion must be filed within 14 days after service of the motion.”). Defendants’ failure to respond is grounds for granting the Motion. See DUCivR 7-1(f) (“[F]ailure to respond timely to a motion may result in the court granting the motion without further notice.”). Because this case involves N.G.’s highly sensitive and personal health information, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he title of the complaint must…