M.F. v. United Healthcare Insurance Company
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:25-cv-07308
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Todd M.F. v. Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, Judge DeMarchi granted plaintiffs’ request to use initials because of sensitive mental-health information.
Todd M.F. and G.K.F. may proceed under the initials “Todd M.F.” and “G.K.F.” The defendants may later seek disclosure of their full names.
What happened
Todd M.F. and G.K.F. sued over the alleged denial of insurance coverage for G.K.F.’s wilderness-therapy treatment, bringing contract, declaratory-judgment, and mental-health-parity claims. They asked to use initials instead of their full names.
The court said lawsuits are generally filed under the parties’ real names, but anonymity may be allowed when privacy concerns outweigh harm to defendants and the public’s interest in knowing the parties’ identities. The court found that G.K.F.’s diagnoses, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, hospitalization, and treatment history made this a sensitive and highly personal matter.
Judge DeMarchi granted the motion to proceed under pseudonyms. The plaintiffs may use “Todd M.F.” and “G.K.F.”; the defendants had not yet appeared, and the court said they could later seek disclosure of the plaintiffs’ full names.
The detailed version
- M.F. v. United Healthcare Insurance Company · No. 5:25-cv-07308
- Virginia Demarchi
- Sept. 22, 2025
Background
Todd M.F., individually and on behalf of G.K.F., and G.K.F. sued United Healthcare Insurance Company, Santa Clara Central Fire Protection District, and the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Welfare Benefit Plan. The complaint alleges wrongful denial of health-insurance coverage for treatment G.K.F. received at New Vision Wilderness Therapy. It asserts claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and violation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.
The plaintiffs moved to proceed using initials rather than their full names. The defendants had not yet appeared in the case.
Reasoning
The court explained that defendants generally have a due-process right to confront the opposing party, and the public generally has a right to access court proceedings. For that reason, parties ordinarily must use their real names. An exception may apply when anonymity is needed to protect someone from harm, harassment, ridicule, or personal embarrassment, and when the need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in disclosure.
The court found that exception applied because G.K.F. had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, a parent-child relational problem, and Autism Spectrum disorder, Level 1. The complaint also alleged self-harm, serious suicidal thoughts, and hospitalization. The plaintiffs said that making this information public could cause shame and stigma, could be harmful to G.K.F., and could discourage future efforts to seek help. Todd M.F. said that disclosing his full name could compromise G.K.F.’s anonymity.
The court found no apparent prejudice to the defendants because the dispute concerned health-insurance coverage, the complaint identified the relevant insurers and plan, and those entities plausibly already possessed documents and information containing the plaintiffs’ full names. The court also found no indication that the plaintiffs’ identities would affect resolution of the dispute.
Ruling
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under pseudonyms. The plaintiffs may use the designations “Todd M.F.” and “G.K.F.” The order states that, because the defendants had not yet appeared, they may later file a motion seeking disclosure of the plaintiffs’ full names. The opinion addresses only the use of pseudonyms and does not decide the underlying insurance-coverage claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.