Doe v. Joyous PBC
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-02357
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Doe v. Joyous PBC, Judge Donato allowed Jane Doe to use a pseudonym because the case concerns sensitive mental-health information.
Jane Doe, whose identity may remain undisclosed under the order, and Joyous PBC and its attorneys, who must use the pseudonym and may not disclose her identity without the court’s prior consent.
What happened
Doe v. Joyous PBC concerns Jane Doe’s lawsuit against Joyous PBC, an online provider of ketamine treatments for mental health conditions. Doe sued individually and for a proposed class, alleging that Joyous disclosed communications containing protected health information to third parties.
Doe asked to proceed under a pseudonym rather than her real name. She said disclosure could cause ridicule, embarrassment, and social and professional stigma because the case involves her mental-health information and ketamine treatment.
Judge Donato granted Doe’s request to use the name Jane Doe in the case. The order requires the parties to use that name and bars Joyous PBC and its lawyers from disclosing her identity to anyone else without the court’s permission.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Joyous PBC · No. 3:24-cv-02357
- James Donato
- May 20, 2024
Background
Joyous PBC is described as an online provider of ketamine treatments for mental health conditions. Jane Doe sued Joyous PBC individually and on behalf of a proposed class. The complaint alleges that Joyous disclosed communications containing protected health information to third parties, including Meta, Google, and Twilio.
Doe asked the court for permission to litigate under a pseudonym. She identified concerns about ridicule, personal embarrassment, and significant social and professional stigma if her identity became known. The requested pseudonym was Jane Doe.
Ruling
The court found that using a pseudonym was warranted because the lawsuit concerns sensitive and protected health information, including information about mental health conditions that Doe provided to Joyous PBC for treatment. The court also noted that Doe’s real identity would be disclosed to Joyous PBC, which would prevent prejudice to the defendant.
The order permits Doe to appear as Jane Doe. It requires all parties to refer to her as Jane Doe in pleadings, other case documents, and court proceedings. Joyous PBC and its attorneys may not disclose her identity to any other person or entity without the court’s prior consent. The order states that it may be terminated if future circumstances warrant. This order addressed pseudonym use and did not decide the underlying allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.