D.A

D.A., et al. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 20, 20253:25-cv-08866California616 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 D.A., et al., Case No. 25-cv-08866-JST

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

9 v. PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS

10 ROBLOX CORPORATION, et al., Re: ECF No. 4 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff moves to proceed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe J.R.” and for their guardian to 14 proceed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe D.A.” ECF No. 4 at 1. 15 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. 16 Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010); see 17 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (requiring that the title of every complaint include the names of all the 18 parties). This presumption stems from “the public’s common law right of access to judicial 19 proceedings,” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000), 20 and “the right of private individuals to confront their accusers.” Kamehameha Schools, 596 F.3d 21 at 1042. However, a party may “proceed anonymously when…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.