M.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 A. M., Case No. 23-cv-03406-JD

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

v. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND

LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER A

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., PSEUDONYM Defendants.

Plaintiff A.M. alleges claims related to a sexual assault. A.M. asks to proceed pseudonymously and for a protective order directing defendants to file under seal any documents stating her true name. Dkt. No. 3. Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion. A.M. has satisfied the controlling test in Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000). She credibly alleges that she could be subjected to “extreme personal embarrassment” if her true name is made public, Dkt. No. 3 at 4, and has shown that her “need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity,” Does, 214 F.3d at 1068. Specifically, A.M. states that she needs to maintain …