Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 12, 2026

Doe v. Joseph B. Edlow

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:26-cv-07536
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In John Doe v. Joseph B. Edlow, Judge DeMarchi provisionally granted Doe’s request to use a pseudonym and protect his telephone number.

Who this affects

John Doe may proceed provisionally under a pseudonym, and the order addresses protection of his telephone number from public disclosure. The decision may be revisited after Joseph B. Edlow appears.

What happened

John Doe, who is representing himself, filed this lawsuit using the name “John Doe.” He asked to continue using that pseudonym and to prevent public disclosure of his telephone number.

Doe said he had been granted asylum and that anonymity was needed to protect him from retaliatory or adverse attention. The court noted that his supporting statement was very general but found that, at this stage, provisional anonymity was appropriate.

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi provisionally granted Doe’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym. The court said it could revisit that decision after the defendant appears and directed the clerk to issue the proposed summons.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Doe v. Joseph B. Edlow · No. 5:26-cv-07536
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Aug. 12, 2026

Background

John Doe filed the action while representing himself and asked for permission to proceed under a pseudonym. He also asked the court to protect against public disclosure of his telephone number. Doe stated that he had been granted asylum and that anonymity regarding his name and telephone number was necessary to protect against “retaliatory or adverse attention.”

Legal standard and analysis

The court explained that people who file lawsuits generally must use their own names. An exception may apply in an unusual case when withholding a party’s identity is necessary to protect that person from harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment. The court noted that Doe’s supporting declaration was stated at a very high level of generality.

Ruling

Despite that concern, the court provisionally granted Doe’s motion to proceed pseudonymously at this stage. The order may be revisited once Joseph B. Edlow appears. The clerk was directed to issue the proposed summons. The order was signed by Virginia K. DeMarchi, United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.