R. v. Lehman
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-06567
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In R. v. Lehman, Judge Donato allowed R. to use a pseudonym because the risk of persecution outweighed the interests in disclosure.
R., whose request to proceed under a pseudonym was granted; the defendants, whose ability to disclose R.’s identity is restricted by the order.
What happened
In R. v. Lehman, R. asked to use a pseudonym in a lawsuit seeking referral of an asylum application to Immigration Court. The court had previously denied that request without prejudice because R. had not provided enough explanation.
R. renewed the request and said that being identified could create a risk of persecution if the asylum application were denied and R. had to return to Indonesia. R. based that concern on alleged harassment, discrimination, and violence directed at gay men in Indonesia. The defendants did not oppose the renewed request by the deadline.
Judge James Donato granted the renewed request. R. may proceed as “R.” in publicly filed documents and related case materials. The order also restricts disclosure of R.’s identity, requires the parties to discuss any necessary disclosure, and allows the court to end the protection if circumstances change.
The detailed version
- R. v. Lehman · No. 3:23-cv-06567
- James Donato
- Jan. 23, 2024
Background
R. sued Danielle Lehman and other defendants seeking a referral of an asylum application to Immigration Court. R. initially asked to proceed under a pseudonym, but the court denied that request without prejudice because it lacked a detailed justification for anonymity. R. then filed a renewed request. The defendants had been served, and the deadline to oppose the renewed request had passed.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s standard for pseudonym requests. R. stated a fear of persecution if the asylum application were denied and R. were required to return to Indonesia. The stated basis was alleged harassment, discrimination, and violence in Indonesia directed against gay men, which R. identified in the asylum application. The court also noted that little, if any, prejudice would result to the opposing parties, and that R.’s true identity was known to the Asylum Office.
Ruling
The court concluded that R.’s need for anonymity outweighed prejudice to the opposing parties and the public’s interest in knowing R.’s identity. It therefore allowed R. to proceed as “R.” in all publicly filed court documents and directed that R. be referred to as R. in pleadings and other documents related to the litigation. The order restricts disclosure of R.’s identity to other persons or entities; if disclosure may be necessary to defend against the claims, the defendants must meet and confer with R. about how to proceed, with the court resolving disagreements. The court stated that the order may be terminated if future circumstances warrant.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.