1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FIONA, et al., Case No. 24-cv-06015-SVK

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION 9 v. TO PROCEED WITH PSEUDONYMS

10 MIN HAO WU, Re: Dkt. No. 6 11 Defendant.

12 Plaintiffs commenced this action under pseudonyms and now move for leave to continue to 13 proceed under those pseudonyms. See Dkt. 6 (the “Motion”). For the reasons that follow, the 14 Court GRANTS the Motion. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 As alleged in the complaint, Defendant has pled guilty to federal charges of illegal 17 possession of child pornography. See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 58-59. Plaintiffs—adults and minor children 18 represented by their parents and legal guardians—have confirmed that “images of each of them as 19 children engaged in sexual conduct are included among those images seized by law enforcement 20 from Defendant.” See id. ¶ 64; see also id. ¶¶ 3-53, 61-63. Unfortunately, Defendant’s guilty plea 21 and law enforcement’s seizure of these images does not end the matter, as “images of . . . Plaintiffs 22 are still traded on the Internet.” See Motion at 2. Because of the sexual abuse they experienced 23 and such continued circulation of images of the abuse, 24 Plaintiffs have suffered greatly . . . . They suffer psychologically in a number of 25 different manners; each is hyper-vigilant, suffers a rational paranoia, fear, and 26 anxiety, and has had varying bouts of severe depression and anger, to name a few. . . . The minors would be endangered by the revelation of the identities of the next 27 friends, conservators, and guardian ad litem. 1 Id. at 7-8; see also id. at 2-7 (describing Plaintiffs’ individual experiences). Accordingly, 2 Plaintiffs commenced this action under pseudonyms and request leave to continue to do so “to 3 protect themselves from harassment, injury, ridicule, and personal embarrassment.” See id. at 2. 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. 6 Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est.,

(9th Cir. 2010) (citations 7 omitted). However, parties may “proceed anonymously when special circumstances justify 8 secrecy.” See Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2000) 9 (citations omitted). Specifically, parties may “use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual case’ when 10 nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, injury, 11 ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” See

(citations omitted). Where such special 12 circumstances exist, “a party may preserve his or her anonymity . . . when the party’s need for 13 anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the 14 party’s identity.” See

. Beyond these special circumstances and their accompanying 15 balancing test, “[u]nless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court 16 that contains . . . the name of an individual known to be a minor, . . . a party or nonparty making 17 the filing may include only: . . . the minor’s initials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 Permitting Plaintiffs to proceed anonymously is appropriate in this case. 20 Special Circumstances Exist. The Ninth Circuit has recognized the harm inflicted by 21 pornographic images of children: 22 Courts have identified several ways in which the individuals depicted in images of 23 child pornography are harmed by the circulation and viewing of those 24 images. These injuries include “the emotional and psychic” pain of knowing that the images are being viewed, as well as the repeated violations of the individual’s 25 privacy interests[.] In the sentencing context, we have likewise held that the minors depicted in child pornography should be considered the “victims” of a 26 defendant who possesses or trades in images of their abuse. 27 1 materials produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child 2 is exacerbated by their circulation.” New York v. Ferber,

(1982) (footnote 3 omitted). Preserving Plaintiffs’ anonymity “is [therefore] necessary . . . to protect [Plaintiffs] from 4 harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Advanced Textile,

5 (citations omitted). Thus, the required special circumstances exist. 6 Plaintiffs’ Need For Anonymity Is Great. Courts routinely recognize parties’ interests in 7 preserving their anonymity in the context of child pornography and sexual abuse. See, e.g., Lily v. 8 Little, No. 23-cv-02283-LL,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2023); Doe v. Pasadena 9 Hosp. Ass’n, No. 18-cv-09648-DDP,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2018); Marble 10 ex rel. N.S. v. Rockett, No. 16-cv-02171-AC,

, at *2 (D. Or. Apr. 10, 2017). 11 Defendant Will Suffer No Prejudice. Plaintiffs bring a single claim for liquidated 12 damages under

(a). See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 65-70. “Defendant is [therefore] not 13 prejudiced by Plaintiff[s’] anonymity, since the only two issues to be decided in a liquidated 14 damages action under

(a) are victimhood and damages, and the publication of 15 Plaintiff[s’] legal name[s] has no bearing on those issues.” Little,

, at *2 16 (citation omitted). 17 The Public Interest In Disclosure Of Plaintiffs’ Identities Is Minimal. As noted above, 18 it does not appear that resolution of the issues in this action will implicate Plaintiffs’ identifies. 19 Thus, the public interest does not weigh in favor of requiring disclosure of Plaintiffs’ identities. 20 See, e.g., Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.,

, 854 (N.D. Cal. 2023); Doe v. Cnty. of El 21 Dorado, No. 13-cv-01433-KJM,

, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013). To the 22 contrary, “allowing victims of child pornography to proceed anonymously serves a strong public 23 interest in protecting their identities so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such 24 crimes and seeking civil remedies.” Doe ex rel. Jessy v. Dinkfield, No. 19-cv-01554-ODW, 2019

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2019) (citations omitted). 26 Some Plaintiffs Are Minors. As discussed above (see Section

parties and non- 27 parties must refer to minors using their initials, unless the Court orders otherwise. See, e.g., 1 30, 2022). 2 || IV. CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Plaintiffs may continue to 4 || identify themselves in this action using pseudonyms, all filings on the docket may reference 5 || Plaintiffs using only their pseudonyms and no party may publicly disclose Plaintiffs’ identities. 6 || Because no party other than Plaintiffs has yet appeared in this action, issuance of this Order does 7 || not prejudice the right of any later-appearing party to move to reveal Plaintiffs’ identities. See, 8 || eg., Doe v. Risch, No. 18-cv-04583-SBA, Dkt. 14 at 2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2018). 9 SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: September 4, 2024 1] — Sesser SUSAN VAN KEULEN 13 United States Magistrate Judge

16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28