1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 P.S., a minor, by her Mother and Natural Case No. 25-cv-00698-AMO Guardian, M.S., 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER v. PSEUDONYM 10 LANDOWNERS OF OAKLAND Re: Dkt. No. 37 11 AIRPORT HOTEL, LTD., et al., Defendants. 12

13 Plaintiff P.S. is a minor and alleged child sex trafficking survivor. M.S. is her adult 14 mother. Plaintiff moves the Court to allow M.S. to proceed anonymously in pretrial proceedings. 15 See ECF 37 at 2-3. Plaintiff has conferred with Defendant 150 Hegenberger Capital LLC, and 16 represents that Defendant does not oppose this motion. Id. at 2. Moreover, the deadline for any 17 opposition has passed and none was filed. Now, having carefully considered Plaintiff’s motion 18 and the arguments made therein, as well as the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby 19 GRANTS the motion for the following reasons. 20 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. 21 Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate,

(9th Cir. 2010); see 22 Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.,

, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2000); see also 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (requiring that the title of every complaint “name all the parties”). However, 24 a party may proceed anonymously when “special circumstances justify secrecy,” such as where 25 “nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, injury, 26 ridicule or personal embarrassment’ ” and the “need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the 27 opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Advanced Textile Corp., 1 214 F.3d at 1067-68 (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has identified three circumstances 2 where this may be the case: (1) “when identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental 3 harm”; (2) when anonymity is necessary to “preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly 4 personal nature”; and (3) when the anonymous party is “compelled to admit his or her intention to 5 engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution.” Id. (citations omitted). District 6 courts have broad discretion to determine whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously. 7 Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068-69; Kamehameha Schools,

. 8 P.S. has established adequate grounds for granting her request to allow M.S. to proceed 9 anonymously. Because P.S. and M.S. share the same last name, Plaintiff argues that P.S.’s 10 identity would be easily determined if M.S.’s name were public. Mot. at 2. Plaintiff further 11 argues that the identification of either one of them would risk retaliation from the alleged 12 trafficker, and because the allegations involve the sex trafficking of a child, P.S. is entitled to the 13 Court’s protection from harm, harassment, ridicule, and embarrassment. Mot. at 2; J.M. v. 14 Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 20-CV-00656-BLF,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15 18, 2025) (granting motion to proceed under pseudonym of a plaintiff whose child was a sex 16 trafficking victim because disclosure of the plaintiff’s name “in connection with details about the 17 victimization of her daughter could subject Plaintiff to ridicule or personal embarrassment”). The 18 Court finds these circumstances justify M.S. proceeding anonymously. Further, Defendant will 19 not be prejudiced as Plaintiff does not seek to keep M.S.’s identity from them. 20 Finally, the public’s interest in the case can be served without revealing M.S.’s identity. 21 Allowing M.S. to proceed anonymously will not bar public scrutiny of the key issues in this case, 22 see Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1072, and is therefore appropriate here. See Doe #1 v. 23 Palo Alto Unified Sch. Dist., No. 25-CV-02120-EKL,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 24 2025) (finding plaintiff’s need for anonymity outweighed risk of prejudice to defendants and the 25 public interest and allowing both plaintiff – a sexual harassment and assault victim – and her 26 mother to proceed anonymously). 27 // 1 Because M.S.’s anonymity from the public will not preyudice Defendant and the need to 2 || proceed anonymously outweighs the public’s interest in knowing her identity, Advanced Textile 3 Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously is GRANTED. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: July 12, 2025 7 col: □ . ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28