Doe v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC.
- Alex Tse
- 3:25-cv-06363
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Jane Doe v. TEA DATING ADVICE, Inc., Judge Kim allowed Jane Doe to litigate anonymously because public disclosure could lead to harassment.
Jane Doe may litigate publicly under the pseudonym “JANE DOE,” while TEA Dating Advice, Inc. must receive her identity; the parties must redact her identifying information from public filings.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. TEA DATING ADVICE, Inc., Jane Doe asked to use a pseudonym in the lawsuit.
The court found that publicly disclosing her name or other identifying information could lead to harassment. It granted her motion to proceed anonymously.
Judge Kim ordered the parties to use “JANE DOE” in filings and public proceedings and to redact her identifying information, but required Doe to disclose her identity to TEA Dating Advice, Inc.
The detailed version
- Doe v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC. · No. 3:25-cv-06363
- Alex Tse
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
Jane Doe filed an administrative motion asking to proceed under a pseudonym. The court noted that parties are normally expected to litigate under their real names. A party seeking anonymity must show that the need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.
Ruling
The court found that publicly disclosing Doe’s name or other identifying information could lead to harassment. It therefore granted her administrative motion to proceed anonymously.
Effect of the Order
The parties must refer to the plaintiff as “JANE DOE” in all filings and public proceedings. They must redact her true full name and other personally identifying information from filings in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. Doe must nevertheless disclose her identity to TEA Dating Advice, Inc.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.