M. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-03406
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In A. M. v. Uber Technologies, Judge Donato allowed A. M. to use a pseudonym and ordered identity protections in her sexual-assault case.
A. M., the defendants, their attorneys, and members of the public who might otherwise see her identity in the court record.
What happened
In A. M. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., A. M. alleged claims related to a sexual assault and asked to use a pseudonym in public court filings.
A. M. said disclosure of her name could cause severe embarrassment, stigma, reprisals from her attacker, and harm to her recovery. She agreed to provide her full name to the defendants under a protective order, and the defendants did not oppose her request.
Judge Donato granted the requests. A. M. may use “A.M.” in public filings and court proceedings, and the defendants and their lawyers may not disclose her identity to anyone else.
The detailed version
- M. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-03406
- Charles Breyer
- Aug. 4, 2023
Background
A. M. alleged claims related to a sexual assault. She asked the court for permission to proceed under a pseudonym, meaning a name other than her true name, and requested a protective order requiring defendants to file under seal documents that stated her true name. The defendants did not oppose the motion.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the controlling Ninth Circuit test for anonymous litigation. It found that A. M. credibly alleged she could suffer extreme personal embarrassment if her identity became public. The court also found that her need for anonymity outweighed potential prejudice to the defendants and the public’s interest in knowing her identity. The reasons identified included the stigma that can attach to survivors of sexual assault, the possibility of reprisals from her attacker, and the potential effect of disclosure on her recovery. A. M. would provide her full name to the defendants under the protective order.
Ruling
The court granted the requests. A. M. may proceed as “A.M.” in all publicly filed court documents and will be referred to as A.M. in pleadings, other documents related to the litigation, and proceedings before the court. The defendants and their attorneys may not disclose her identity to any other person or entity. The court stated that the order may be terminated if future circumstances warrant it.
Effect
The order protects A. M.’s identity while the litigation proceeds. It did not decide the merits of her underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.