G. v. Google

Background

N.G. and his parents, Daniel G. and Molly G., brought an action alleging that the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by denying insurance coverage for care N.G. received as a minor. The plaintiffs initially used initials and partial names. The court directed them either to file an amended complaint using their full names or to request permission to proceed under initials.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed anonymously. The defendants did not respond within the required time. The court stated that the failure to respond was grounds for granting the motion.

Legal standard

Federal civil procedure rules generally require the complaint’s title to name all parties. The court explained, however, that minors may generally be identified by initials and that courts may allow anonymous litigation in exceptional cases involving highly sensitive and personal matters, a serious risk of physical harm, or harm caused by disclosure of a party’s identity. Courts weigh those privacy interests against the public’s interest in access to court proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that this case involved highly sensitive and personal health information. The complaint included sensitive details about N.G.’s personal circumstances and serious mental-health issues he experienced as a minor. The court determined that N.G. had a strong interest in protecting his identity because the case concerned care he received as a child.

The court also found that Daniel G. and Molly G. should remain anonymous because disclosure of their full names would reveal N.G.’s identity. It found that the public interest in identifying the parties was limited because the case involved private individuals challenging the denial of insurance benefits, rather than a broad public issue such as a constitutional challenge to legislation.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed anonymously. It ordered them to file their full names—Daniel G., Molly G., and N.G.—with the court under seal. That filing must remain sealed unless the court orders otherwise. The order addressed anonymity and sealing only; the opinion did not decide whether the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or whether insurance coverage was owed.