R. v. Blue Shield of California
- Alex Tse
- 3:25-cv-09226
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In C. R. v. Blue Shield, Judge Tse granted C. R.’s request to litigate anonymously and seal an unredacted declaration about his child’s mental-health benefits.
C. R. may litigate publicly under a pseudonym, and the unredacted declaration attached to the motion is sealed. Blue Shield of California must litigate against C. R. while receiving C. R.’s identity privately.
What happened
C. R. v. Blue Shield of California concerns C. R.’s request to use a pseudonym while seeking insurance benefits for mental-health care provided to C. R.’s minor child. C. R. said that identifying the parent would also identify the child. Blue Shield had appeared and answered the complaint but had not opposed the pseudonym request when it was filed.
The court explained that parties normally must use their real names, but anonymity can be allowed in unusual cases involving sensitive and highly personal matters. The court found that the child’s mental-health treatment made this case sensitive, that C. R. would disclose his identity to Blue Shield, and that allowing anonymity would not meaningfully impair Blue Shield’s ability to litigate. The court also found that the public interest supported allowing the case to proceed on its merits.
Judge Alex G. Tse granted C. R.’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym, subject to reconsideration as the case continues. The court also granted C. R.’s request to seal the unredacted declaration attached to the motion. The order disposed of docket entry 22.
The detailed version
- R. v. Blue Shield of California · No. 3:25-cv-09226
- Alex Tse
- Mar. 5, 2026
Background
C. R. asked to proceed under a pseudonym while seeking benefits for mental-health care provided to C. R.’s minor child. C. R. represented that publicly identifying the parent would identify the child as well. Blue Shield of California had appeared and answered the complaint before the motion was filed, but had not responded to or opposed the motion as of the filing date.
C. R. also asked to seal the unredacted declaration attached to the motion. The court later stated that the request to seal was made for good cause.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the general rule that parties ordinarily must use their real names. It explained that a party may proceed anonymously in an unusual case when nondisclosure is necessary to protect against harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment, and when the need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.
The court found that this case involved a sensitive and highly personal matter because C. R. sought benefits for mental-health treatment provided to a minor child. The court also relied on the requirement that minors be identified by initials in court filings and accepted C. R.’s representation that identifying C. R. would identify the child.
The court found little risk of prejudice to Blue Shield because the case was still before discovery, the court could manage the proceedings, and C. R. would disclose the identity to Blue Shield. It also found that the public interest did not weigh against anonymity because the basic facts of the case would remain public and there was no indication that C. R.’s identity was important to the administration of justice.
Disposition
Judge Alex G. Tse granted C. R.’s motion to proceed by pseudonym, subject to reconsideration as the case unfolds. The court also granted, for good cause shown, C. R.’s request to seal the unredacted declaration attached to the motion. The order stated that it disposed of docket entry 22.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.