C. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-04723
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In J.C. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Judge Breyer allowed J.C. to use a pseudonym and protected her identity in public filings.
J.C., whose identity may remain confidential in public filings and court proceedings; the defendants, who may receive her full name under the protective order; and members of the public, who will not see her true name in those materials.
What happened
In J.C. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., J.C. alleged claims related to a sexual assault in an Uber vehicle. She asked to proceed using her initials and requested protection for documents revealing her name. Uber and the other defendants did not oppose the request.
The court found that J.C. could face severe embarrassment, unwanted attention, stigma, and possible retaliation if her identity became public. It also found that her need for anonymity outweighed the defendants’ and public’s interest in knowing her identity. J.C. agreed to provide her full name to the defendants under the requested protection.
The court therefore allowed J.C. to use “J.C.” in all publicly filed documents and court proceedings, and ordered that she be referred to that way in litigation documents. Judge Breyer stated that defendants could meet and confer with J.C. if disclosure became necessary to defend the claims, and that the order could later be ended if circumstances warranted.
The detailed version
- C. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-04723
- Charles Breyer
- Sept. 26, 2023
Background
J.C. alleged claims related to a sexual assault in an Uber vehicle. She asked the court to let her litigate under the pseudonym “J.C.” 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 test from Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., which considers whether a person plausibly faces extreme embarrassment and unwanted attention, and whether the need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the person’s identity.
The court found that J.C. satisfied that test. She identified the stigma associated with being a survivor of sexual assault, the possibility of reprisals from her attacker, and the potential effect that public disclosure could have on her recovery. She also agreed to provide her full name to the defendants under the requested protective order.
Order
The court allowed J.C. to proceed as “J.C.” in all publicly filed court documents. It directed that she be referred to as J.C. in pleadings and other documents related to the litigation, as well as in court proceedings. If defendants determined that disclosure of her identity was necessary to defend against the claims, they were to meet and confer with J.C. about how to proceed; the court would resolve disagreements about that procedure. The court stated that the order could be terminated if future circumstances warranted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.