Roe v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for permission to proceed under pseudonyms. They said their lawsuit seeks relief concerning the narcotics trade and related criminal activity in the Tenderloin, where they reside. They feared that people involved in those criminal enterprises would retaliate if the plaintiffs’ true names were disclosed, including by seriously injuring or killing them.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that parties ordinarily must litigate using their real names. A court may allow pseudonyms when keeping a party’s identity secret is necessary to protect the person from harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment. For claims based on fear of retaliation, the court applied five factors: the severity of the threatened harm, the reasonableness of the fear, the plaintiff’s vulnerability to retaliation, prejudice to the opposing party, and the public interest.

The court found that threatened physical retaliation and death were severe. It found the plaintiffs’ fears reasonable based on prior violence involving people engaged in criminal activities in the Tenderloin and threats the plaintiffs had received, including threats involving knives and hammers. The court also found the plaintiffs particularly vulnerable because they live in the Tenderloin.

The court concluded that the defendant would not be prejudiced because the plaintiffs agreed to disclose their identities to the defendant for purposes of the litigation. It further concluded that the public interest supported pseudonymity because the plaintiffs’ identities were not central to the issues and would not affect public access to the substance of the proceedings.

Ruling

The court balanced the plaintiffs’ need for anonymity against the defendant’s potential prejudice and the public’s interest in knowing the plaintiffs’ identities. Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the plaintiffs’ motion and allowed them to proceed under pseudonyms. The opinion addressed only the use of pseudonyms, not the merits of the underlying lawsuit.