Doe v. Becerra
- 3:23-cv-05925
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Jane Doe v. Becerra, the court allowed pseudonymous litigation and ordered limited unsealing and redaction.
Jane Doe, the defendants, the Clerk of Court, and members of the public who access the case docket and filings.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. Becerra, Jane Doe sought judicial review of a Medicare Appeals Council decision and asked to keep the case and medical information sealed. She also asked to proceed under a pseudonym because she feared harassment and discrimination related to her transgender identity.
The parties agreed that Doe could proceed as “Jane Doe,” that identifying information would be redacted, and that documents identifying her by name would remain sealed. They also agreed that the rest of the case could be unsealed, subject to further requests concerning the administrative record.
The court approved the arrangement. The court allowed Jane Doe to proceed pseudonymously, ordered the case unsealed while keeping earlier identifying documents sealed, required a corrected and redacted complaint by January 26, 2024, and permitted one medical-record page to be filed under seal.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Becerra · No. 3:23-cv-05925
- Jan. 19, 2024
Background
Jane Doe filed a complaint seeking judicial review of a Medicare Appeals Council decision. She filed the complaint while representing herself. She also asked to file the complaint, later pleadings, and the administrative record under seal because they contained or might contain medical and other private information.
The court had previously denied the request to seal the entire case because it was too broad, while allowing Doe to file a narrower sealing motion or seek permission to proceed under a pseudonym. Doe then asked to proceed pseudonymously, to redact identifying information from pleadings or keep those pleadings sealed, and to keep the administrative record under seal. The defendants did not oppose her request. The parties stated that Doe sought anonymity to protect against potential harassment and discrimination connected to her transgender identity.
Ruling
The court approved the parties’ stipulation, as modified in the proposed order. It applied the Ninth Circuit’s test for pseudonymous litigation: whether the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity. The court found no prejudice to the defendants and determined that the public’s interest in Doe’s identity was low, while the public could still access the legal issues and their resolution.
The court ordered that:
- Doe may proceed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe.” - Doe’s name and personally identifying information must be redacted from filings that are not kept under seal. - Doe need not include her address, telephone number, or email address on documents she files. - The Clerk must unseal the case, but documents filed before the parties’ stipulation that identify Doe by name must remain sealed. - Doe must refile her complaint by January 26, 2024, with a corrected caption and redacted exhibits. - Page 8 of Exhibit B, which contains a medical record from UCSF Health, may be filed under seal. - Before unsealing the case, the Clerk must remove Doe’s name and personally identifying information from the civil docket. Docket entries that cannot be corrected must be sealed so they do not appear on the docket sheet.
The order did not decide the merits of Doe’s challenge to the Medicare Appeals Council decision. It also left open the possibility that either side could later request permission to file the administrative record under seal after determining what information it contains.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.