17-CIV-05530 JANE ROE VS. JOSE TORRES L.D. LATIN CLUB BAR, INC., ET AL.

JANE ROE JOSE TORRES L.D. LATIN CLUB BAR, INC.
STEVEN G. TIDRICK MARK SCHICKMAN

MOTION FOR ORDER TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jane Roe’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym, and for a Protective Order, is GRANTED-IN-PART. The Court finds sufficient grounds to grant Plaintiff’s request to proceed under a pseudonym. The parties shall revise Plaintiff’s proposed Protective Order as discussed below, and submit the revised version for the Court’s signature.

Defendant correctly notes that cases should normally be prosecuted under the parties’ true names. Code Civ. Proc. § 367. However, this rule is not absolute. Courts have authority to permit the use of pseudonyms in various circumstances, such as where doing so is necessary to protect against harassment, injury, embarrassment, and social stigmatization. See, e.g., Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. (9th Cir. 2000) 214 F.3d 1058. “Exotic dancers” at night clubs have sought anonymity status in a number of cases. While some requests have been denied (4 Exotic Dancers v. Spearmint Rhino, 2009 WL 250054 (C.D. Cal. 2009)), many have been granted. See Jane Roe v. SFBFC Management LLC, 77 F.Supp.3d 990 (N.D. Cal. 2015); Staci Allen and Jane Doe Dancer v. O.G. Eliades, LLC, 2016 WL 11261543 (D. Nv. 2009); DOE #1 v. Déjàvu Consulting 2017 WL 3837730 (M.D. Tn. 2017). While Defendant takes issue with Plaintiff’s supporting declaration, few alleged facts are needed for the Court to recognize (a) the stigma associated with nude/semi-nude dancing, (b) the potential safety concerns associated with the public disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity; (c) Plaintiff’s stated privacy rights/concerns. The Court finds these issues/concerns outweigh the prejudice to defendant and the public’s interest in knowing plaintiff’s identity.

Defendant primarily argues prejudice that would result from defendant not knowing Plaintiff’s identity. This is a non-issue, because Plaintiff has agreed to divulge her identity to defendant pursuant to a protective order. Defendant also argues that discovery will be hampered without the ability to divulge Plaintiff’s identity to third parties. This is a valid concern. Plaintiff responds by arguing such concerns can be addressed, as other courts have done, through a protective order allowing plaintiff’s name to be revealed to significant third parties in a way that protects the plaintiff’s interests, without prejudicing defendant’s ability to litigate the case. In her briefing, Plaintiff states she agrees to identify other clubs where she has worked, and argues that that similar facts may be established by stipulation or by third-party depositions under a protective order. Given Plaintiff’s arguments, Plaintiff shall identify her past employers to Defendant, and shall otherwise cooperate in good faith in permitting reasonable discovery requests to enable Defendant to fairly defend against Plaintiff’s claims.

The parties shall work together in good faith and agree upon a Protective Order for the Court’s signature, that is consistent with this Order. It shall make clear that Plaintiff’s identity will be revealed to Defendant upon the signing of the Protective Order. The parties should also discuss and agree upon any additional language necessary to facilitate fair discovery and minimize any prejudice to Defendant, while also adequately addressing Plaintiff’s concerns.