Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV41020, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV41020    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed this action against Defendant Luis Diaz Rojas stemming from an alleged sexual assault. On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to proceed under the pseudonym Jane Doe. Although the motion was not timely served on Defendant, there appears to be no prejudice as a result, and Defendant was able to file a substantive opposition. As such, the Court will proceed on the merits.

DISCUSSION

            A pseudonym is justified to protect Plaintiff’s privacy given the sensitive nature of the claims. (Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1452; Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 766.) Defendant recognizes in his opposition that anonymity is justified in cases involving matters of a highly sensitive or personal nature, such as sexual assault. (Opp. 6:3-5.) Therefore, it is justified in this case, where Plaintiff alleges sexual assault and also seeks to avoid the stigma of sex work.

            Defendant also argues that Plaintiff has already revealed her identity by verifying the complaint in her real name and doing the same in a separate restraining order against Defendant. However, Defendant simultaneously acknowledges that records can be sealed. (Opp. at p. 7, fn. 1.) Plaintiff is in the process of having the restraining order sealed. (Plntf.’s Opp. to Def.’s Opp. 2:23-27.) Plaintiff believed that she had to sign the complaint and restraining order in her real name. (Id. at 2:10-19, 3:1-5.) Defendant does not cite any authority for the proposition that a plaintiff cannot proceed under a pseudonym because her name has been revealed in some records.   

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is GRANTED.