Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV20461, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20461    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 52

Order to Show Cause Re: Plaintiff V.B.’s Use of a Fictitious Name

On October 25, 2022, the court set this order to show cause regarding plaintiff V.B.’s use of a fictitious name.  At that time, defendant County of Los Angeles had not yet been named or served with the summons.  The County has now been served and appeared in this case.  The County has not objected to plaintiff’s use of a fictitious name.

Where no statute provides for plaintiff’s anonymity, “the trial court must conduct a hearing and apply the overriding interest test” to determine whether the plaintiff may remain anonymous.  (Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 111.) 

A party’s request for anonymity should be granted only if the court finds that an overriding interest will likely be prejudiced without use of a pseudonym, and that it is not feasible to protect the interest with less impact on the constitutional right of access.  [Fn.]  In deciding the issue the court must bear in mind the critical importance of the public’s right to access judicial proceedings.  Outside of cases where anonymity is expressly permitted by statute, litigating by pseudonym should occur “only in the rarest of circumstances.”

(Id. at pp. 111-112.) 

Plaintiff has an overriding privacy interest.  “ ‘The judicial use of “Doe plaintiffs” to protect legitimate privacy rights has gained wide currency, particularly given the rapidity and ubiquity of disclosures over the World Wide Web.’ ”  (Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 766.)  Plaintiffs may use a fictitious name when necessary to protect their privacy rights, including in actions alleging sexual assault.  (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531; Doe v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 750, 754; Doe v. Bakersfield City School Dist. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 556.) 

Plaintiff alleges childhood sexual assault.  Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 does not expressly permit plaintiffs to use fictitious names, but it recognizes the sensitive nature of such cases and limits the public’s access to court records.  “The court shall keep under seal and confidential from the public and all parties to the litigation, other than the plaintiff, any and all certificates of corroborative fact.”  (CCP § 340.1(o).)  It also provides for in camera review of some papers and information.  (§ 340.1 subds. (i), (n), (p).) 

Similarly, California law provides minors heightened privacy rights in other contexts.  (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 827 [prohibiting disclosure of juvenile case files]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.552.)  Not only does this imply that minors have greater privacy rights in general, but here, plaintiff was in foster care at the time of the alleged sexual assault.  This action may involve records protected by Welfare and Institutions Code section 827.  Even in adulthood, plaintiff still has an exceptional privacy interest in information about childhood sexual assault.  Such an action concerns highly sensitive and traumatic events. 

Plaintiff’s privacy interest overrides the public’s right to access these judicial proceedings.  There is no feasible way to protect that interest without permitting plaintiff to use a pseudonym. 

The court orders that plaintiff may proceed with this action under the fictitious name V.B.

The order to show cause is hereby discharged.