Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV17170, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17170    Hearing Date: September 13, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed this action against Defendants Lockton Companies LLC – Pacific Series, Timothy Noonan, and Arthur Carlin. The complaint asserts (1) discrimination, (2) harassment, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to prevent, and (5) wrongful termination.

            On August 12, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion to strike Plaintiff’s designation as Jane Doe. Plaintiff filed her opposition on August 30, 2024. Defendant filed his reply on September 6, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part of that pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike (1) any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and (2) all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Id., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., § 437.)

DISCUSSION

            “In the complaint, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 422.40.) Court proceedings are public, and “the right to access court proceedings necessarily includes the right to know the identity of the parties.” (Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Superior Court (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 111 (DFEH).) However, “[b]ecause of the inherently sensitive nature of some proceedings, statutes specifically allow for keeping certain parties’ identities confidential.” (Id. at p. 110.) “Even in the absence of a statute, anonymity for parties may be granted when necessary to preserve an important privacy interest.” (Ibid.)

            “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.” (DFEH, supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p. 111.) “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. 111-12, quoting NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1226.)  

The Court finds that the nature of this particular case justifies the use of a pseudonym under the standards set forth in DFEH. Specifically, Plaintiff’s claims involve allegations of sexual harassment and unwanted touching, and the disclosure of her identity poses a significant risk of potential personal and professional stigma due to the personal nature of the allegations.

Furthermore, Defendants are aware of Plaintiff’s identity, and there is no indication that her anonymity has prevented them from pursuing evidence to defend against her claims. The purported “administrative burdens” of redacting Plaintiff’s name from public filings are insufficient to override Plaintiff’s interest in privacy. Thus, the Court does not find any substantial prejudice to Defendants from Plaintiff’s continued use of the Doe pseudonym.   

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.