S.K. v. Jupiter Research, LLC
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:24-cv-09090
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In S.K. v. Jupiter Research, Judge Van Keulen granted pseudonym protection, allowing plaintiffs to use initials unless defendants later seek unsealing.
The three plaintiffs may use their initials in this action, and their identities may not be publicly disclosed unless the court orders otherwise. Defendants who later appear may ask the court to unseal the plaintiffs’ identities.
What happened
S.K. v. Jupiter Research, LLC involves three individuals who say they indirectly bought vaporized cannabis oil from the defendants and paid unusually high prices because of anticompetitive conduct.
The plaintiffs asked to use initials and requested a protective order, citing the risk of social stigma, harassment, and physical or mental harm connected to cannabis use. They said their identities would be disclosed to the defendants under an expected protective order.
Judge Susan Van Keulen granted the motion. The order lets the plaintiffs and court filings use their initials and bars public disclosure of their identities unless the court orders otherwise, while allowing a defendant who appears later to ask that the identities be made public.
The detailed version
- S.K. v. Jupiter Research, LLC · No. 3:24-cv-09090
- Vince Chhabria
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
Three plaintiffs said they indirectly purchased vaporized cannabis oil from the defendants and paid supercompetitive prices because of the defendants’ alleged anticompetitive conduct. Shortly after filing the complaint, they moved to proceed under pseudonyms, meaning to use names other than their legal names, and sought a protective order.
The plaintiffs argued that revealing their identities could expose them to social stigma, harassment, ridicule, embarrassment, and physical or mental harm. They said their identities would be disclosed to the defendants under an anticipated protective order. They also argued that anonymity would not unfairly hinder the defendants because the defendants would receive the identities, and that the public interest would not be harmed because the plaintiffs’ identities were not central to the dispute.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that parties ordinarily must litigate under their real names, but may use pseudonyms in unusual cases when secrecy is needed to prevent harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment. The court considered the risk and reasonableness of the threatened harm, the plaintiffs’ vulnerability, potential prejudice to the defendants, and the public’s interest in knowing the plaintiffs’ identities.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had addressed the relevant factors supporting anonymity. It found that their concerns about social stigma and professional setbacks related to cannabis consumption weighed in favor of allowing them to proceed anonymously. The court also noted that the plaintiffs proposed redacting names and other identifying information while keeping pleadings, briefs, and relevant documents publicly available.
Ruling
Judge Susan Van Keulen granted the motion. Because the defendants had not yet appeared or had an opportunity to be heard, the ruling was without prejudice to a later motion by any defendant to unseal the plaintiffs’ identities. Unless the court orders otherwise, the plaintiffs may continue using their initials, filings may refer to them by initials, and no party may publicly disclose their identities.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.