Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 22STCV22175, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22175    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 200

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 200

MOVING PARTY:                    Plaintiff John Roe

RESPONDING PARTY:         Defendant Trunks LLC

BACKGROUND

            This case arises from an alleged assault of Plaintiff John Roe by a bouncer employed by Defendant Trunks LLC.  Plaintiff was denied entry into Defendant’s bar based on Defendant’s policy requiring proof of Covid vaccinations.  Plaintiff asked for an exception based on a medical condition (epilepsy), and he alleges the bouncer tasered him for no reason.  After he took a photo of the bouncer, Plaintiff claims the bouncer then followed him for a block from the bar, shouting and cursing at him. 

            This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order under Civ. Proc. Code §367.3.  Plaintiff argues he is entitled to use a pseudonym in pursuit of his action (1) to protect his identity and place of residence from being obtained by his attacker, (2) to ensure his private medical records are not disclosed to the public and to prevent members of the public from discriminating against him as a person with a disability, and (3) to prevent damage to his social and professional life in the event others were to discover he is not vaccinated.     

DISCUSSION

            Code Civ. Proc. §367.3(b)(1) states that “[a] protected person who is a party in a civil proceeding may proceed using a pseudonym, either John Doe, Jane Doe, or Doe, for the true name of the protected person and may exclude or redact from all pleadings and documents filed in the action other identifying characteristics of the protected person.”  A “protected person” means “a person who is an active participant in the address confidentiality program created pursuant to Chapter 3.1 (commencing with Section 6205) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code.”  Plaintiff has not alleged he is an active participant in the address confidentiality program.

Moreover, protected persons are typically those attempting to escape from actual or threatened domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or elder or dependent adult abuse.  Plaintiff has not alleged he is the victim of stalking.  There is no allegation that Defendant or any of its employees are continuing to harass or stalk Plaintiff. 

In any event, Plaintiff’s concerns can best be addressed by a less burdensome protective order.  Plaintiff’s medical records can be produced under a protective order restricting access to confidential materials.  Similarly, Plaintiff can designate as confidential discovery responses and deposition testimony that relate to his medical condition.  Plaintiff can also request that filings be made under seal, to the extent he can meet the elements of seeking such an order.          

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 7, 2022                                                 ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court