1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JANE DOE P.B., et al., Case No. 25-cv-10596-JST

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

9 v. PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM

10 ROBLOX CORPORATION, et al., Re: ECF No. 3 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff moves to proceed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe C.B.” and for their guardian to 14 proceed under the pseudonym “John Doe P.B.” ECF No. 3 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 special circumstances justify 22 secrecy.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1067. In determining whether a party may 23 preserve his anonymity in judicial proceedings, the Ninth Circuit “balance[s] the need for 24 anonymity against the general presumption that parties’ identities are public information and the 25 risk of unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 1068. 26 Plaintiffs are bringing this action to hold Defendant Roblox and Snap, Inc. “accountable 27 for recklessly and deceptively operating its business in a way that led to the sexual exploitation 1 substantial privacy interest in guarding sensitive and highly personal information in this action— 2 || deeply personal details of the grooming, manipulation, sexual harassment, and sexual exploitation 3 suffered by a minor child.” ECF No. 3 at 2. 4 “The most compelling situations [in which plaintiffs may proceed anonymously] involve 5 || matters which are highly sensitive, such as social stigmatization, real danger of physical harm, or 6 || where the injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff's 7 identity.” Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 158, 162 (N.D. Cal. 1981); see also Eknes-Tucker v. Ivey, 8 || No. 2:22-CV-0184-LCB-SRW, 2022 WL 19983530, at *1 (M.D. Ala. May 3, 2022) (granting 9 || anonymity where revealing plaintiffs identity would disclose intimate personal information); Doe 10 v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp., No. CV SAG-23-1572, 2023 WL 3949737, at *3 (D. Md. 11 June 12, 2023) (finding that plaintiff alleged a substantial medical privacy interest that outweighed 12 || the public’s interest in knowing her identity). While the Court recognizes the importance of 5 13 public access to court proceedings and the identities of litigants, it also agrees with Plaintiffs that 14 || details of sexual exploitation of a child constitute a highly sensitive matter. ECF No. 3 at 3. 3 15 Should Plaintiffs be forced to file under their real names, all of Jane Doe C.B.’s information would a 16 || be “easily searchable” such that “anyone with internet access will have all the necessary 3 17 information to quickly ascertain Plaintiffs’ identity.” ECF No. 3 at 2. 18 Briefly, it also bears mention that Defendant will not be prejudiced by Plaintiffs use of a 19 || pseudonym. See Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1072 (finding that “at present defendants suffer no 20 || prejudice by not knowing the names of plaintiffs.”). 21 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Jane Doe C.B. and John Doe P.B. may proceed under 22 || pseudonyms 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: January 13, 2026 Cpr se 2° JON S. TIGAR 6 United States District Judge 27 28