Doe v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02602
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Doe v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Judge Freeman let John Doe remain anonymous and granted both motions to seal identity-revealing materials.
John Doe, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, and the public’s access to the identified court materials.
What happened
In Doe v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, John Doe asked to continue using a pseudonym because he said he faced harassment and discrimination as a transgender man. Progressive did not object.
The court found that Doe’s need for anonymity outweighed the defendant’s and public’s interests in knowing his identity. It also found compelling reasons to seal a video in which Doe says his name and to redact his name from portions of three documents.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Doe may proceed pseudonymously as John Doe and granted both motions to seal, filed at ECF Nos. 35 and 48.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company · No. 5:21-cv-02602
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 21, 2023
Background
John Doe filed the action in state court under a pseudonym but had not asked to proceed pseudonymously in federal court. He stated that he wanted to keep his identity private because he had experienced harassment and discrimination as a transgender man. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company did not object to his proceeding under a pseudonym.
The court also considered two motions to seal materials submitted with Progressive’s briefing on its motion for summary judgment. One motion concerned a video in which Doe says his name. The other concerned redactions of Doe’s name in portions of three documents: a resume and two emails.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s standard for pseudonymous litigation. Under that standard, a party may use a fictitious name in an unusual case when keeping the identity private is necessary to protect against harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment. The court balances the party’s need for anonymity against prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.
The court concluded that Doe could continue using a pseudonym because his need for anonymity outweighed those competing interests. It noted that courts have recognized that a person’s transgender identity can carry enough social stigma to justify anonymity and found no indication of unfairness to Progressive.
For the sealing motions, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard because the materials were submitted with briefing on a summary-judgment motion, which is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. The court found compelling reasons to seal because the materials would reveal Doe’s identity, and Doe sought to protect the confidentiality of his transgender identity and medical history of transitioning and to avoid harassment. The court also found that the requests were narrowly tailored to the materials that disclosed his identity.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Plaintiff may proceed pseudonymously as John Doe. The court granted the motion to seal filed at ECF No. 35 and granted the motion to seal filed at ECF No. 48. The sealing covered the entirety of the identified video and the portions of the three documents stating Doe’s name.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.