1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Q. R., et al., 10 Case No. 24-cv-00689-RS Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY COOPERSURGICAL, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Plaintiffs Q.R. and S.T. brought this products liability case against medical device 16 corporation Coopersurgical, Inc., the Cooper Companies, and associated Does (together, 17 “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants’ defective embryo culture media destroyed Plaintiffs’ 18 developing embryos. Plaintiffs now move to proceed pseudonymously. Defendants do not directly 19 oppose the motion but ask that Plaintiffs identify themselves to Defendants by providing their full 20 and legal names pursuant to a protective order, so that Defendants may share unredacted 21 documents to third parties such as experts or deponents. For the reasons explained herein, the 22 motion is granted with the caveat that Plaintiffs share their full and legal names with Defendants 23 seven days after entry of a protective order. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires a complaint to state the name of all the parties. 25 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(a). Likewise, Rule 17 mandates an action “be prosecuted in the name of the 26 real party in interest.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro 17(a)(1). However, the Ninth Circuit permits parties to 27 advance pseudonymously in the “unusual case when nondisclosure of the party’s identity is 1 I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.,

, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal 2 quotations omitted). Further, “a party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in 3 special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing 4 party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. “The ‘public interest in 5 understanding judicial process’ has supported [the Ninth Circuit’s] ‘general history of access.’” 6 Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate;

, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) 7 (quoting Kamakana v. City of Honolulu,

, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)). Balancing the 8 public interest inquiry requires an explanation for “how disguising plaintiffs’ identifies will 9 obstruct public scrutiny of the important issues in this case.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 10 1072. 11 The facts in this case pertain to sensitive, personal health and medical matters related to 12 fertility and contraception. Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated how revealing their identities 13 publicly could cause them significant embarrassment or emotional injury because of the sensitive 14 nature of this case. Forcing Plaintiffs to disclose widely their fertility struggles may exacerbate 15 their injury. Furthermore, the risk of prejudice to Defendants is nonexistent as Plaintiffs will be 16 sharing their identities with Defendants to permit them to litigate effectively the claims at issue. 17 While there is a general public interest in the disclosure of parties’ identities, Plaintiffs’ request is 18 sufficiently narrowly tailored and does not obstruct public scrutiny of the more important issues in 19 this case, that is, the product liability and fertility negligence claims. Rather, the potential chilling 20 effect caused by forcing similarly situated plaintiffs with fertility negligence claims to proceed 21 publicly may, in fact, harm the public interest. Accordingly, the motion is granted, and materials 22 filed with the court that refer to Plaintiffs must do so by the initials Q.R. and S.T. Plaintiffs must 23 disclose their identities to Defendants seven days after a protective order is entered. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: March 18, 2024 RICHARD SEEBORG 2 Chief United States District Judge 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 e 12

13 14

15 16 € 7 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 98 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY CASE No. 24-cv-00689-RS