Doe

Doe v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America

Good Law
164 F. Supp. 3d 1140·2016 WL 874777·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31361
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 22, 2016Case No. 15-cv-05622-WHOCalifornia2,946 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orrick, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 16,

INTRODUCTION

Federal courts are courts of public record. Some litigants and witnesses prefer anonymity because of the unwanted attention litigation can bring. But the strong presumption is that the public has a right to know who is seeking what in court and whether he or she is entitled to the relief sought. The presumption can be overcome in unusual cases where safety is an issue or stigma is so palpable that anonymity is critical. But that is a rare circumstance.

Here, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging violations arising from the termination of benefits under an employee healthcare plan governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Thousands of lawsuits are filed annually concerning eligibility for ERISA, Social Security or SSI on the basis of disability. These cases often involve sensitive medical information that could- be embarrassing if known generally. As a rule, these cases do not proceed anonymously. While I sympathize with plaintiffs desire to keep his identity private, I would fail my obligation to the public to keep…

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.