Doe v. Revature LLC, 2:22-cv-01399

Pro se plaintiff filed an employment-discrimination and defamation suit against Revature LLC and individual defendants, alleging disability discrimination (schizoaffective disorder / bipolar type), disclosure of his disability, harassment, adverse training decisions, threats of retaliation, and termination.
Plaintiff submitted a complaint identifying himself as "John Doe," but other filings (including the in forma pauperis application and exhibits) contain his full name.
The Court temporarily sealed filings that disclosed the plaintiff’s name and ordered clarification because Rule 10(a) normally requires naming parties and the public has a presumption of access to judicial proceedings.
The Court directed the plaintiff to state whether he intends to proceed anonymously and, if so, to SHOW CAUSE why anonymity and any sealing are warranted.
The Court set deadlines and limits: a 5-day notice whether he will proceed anonymously; if he claims anonymity, a 7-page SHOW CAUSE brief (including attachments) due within 14 days; absent timely response, the sealed filings will be unsealed.
The Court warned that if anonymity is allowed the plaintiff must follow Local Civil Rules 5(g) and 5.2 (motion to seal, narrow tailoring, redaction rules) and that publicly filed documents containing his real name may remain accessible before any sealing order is entered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May plaintiff proceed anonymously?	Plaintiff filed complaint as "John Doe" (implied request for anonymity) but has not supplied justification.	No defendant has appeared; public and Rule 10(a) favor naming parties.	Court ordered plaintiff to state intention and, if seeking anonymity, SHOW CAUSE under the Ninth Circuit anonymity test; otherwise unseal.
Should filings that disclose plaintiff’s real name remain sealed?	Plaintiff seeks sealing of name-containing filings.	No argument on record; potential prejudice to defendants and public interest in access.	Temporary seal maintained pending plaintiff’s response; absent timely SHOW CAUSE, documents will be unsealed.
What legal standard governs anonymity and sealing?	Plaintiff must show special circumstances that outweigh public and opposing-party interests, including fear of retaliation factors.	n/a	Court reiterated Rule 10(a), Does factors for anonymity and Kamakana "compelling reasons" standard for sealing dispositive materials; sealing must be narrowly tailored.
How will the Court manage this procedural issue?	n/a	n/a	Court exercised inherent docket-control authority to set deadlines, page limits, and procedural requirements (LCR 5(g)/5.2) for any future sealed filings.

Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) (establishes Ninth Circuit test allowing anonymity only in special circumstances balancing privacy against prejudice and public interest)
United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1981) (recognizes nondisclosure may be necessary to protect persons from harassment, injury, ridicule, or embarrassment)
Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2010) (applies and affirms the reasonableness requirement for fear-of-retaliation claims by plaintiffs seeking anonymity)
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (holds that "compelling reasons" are required to seal materials attached to dispositive filings and that any sealing must be narrowly tailored)
In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) (recognizes district courts’ inherent power to manage their dockets)