Doe v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America
164 F. Supp. 3d 1140
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiff (seeking to proceed as “John Doe”) is a former law‑firm equity partner who stopped working in Jan. 2014 due to anxiety, cardiac condition, and hypertension and whose employment ended July 28, 2014.
- Plaintiff had three UNUM long‑term disability policies; UNUM initially approved benefits after an IME but terminated benefits March 31, 2015 for allegedly not receiving “appropriate care.”
- Plaintiff sued under ERISA and breach of contract theories seeking benefits; he filed the complaint anonymously and moved for leave to proceed under a pseudonym.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), arguing anonymous filing without prior court permission deprives the court of jurisdiction; they also opposed anonymity on the merits.
- The court concluded Ninth Circuit precedent does not require pre‑filing leave to sue anonymously, but applied the Ninth Circuit balancing test and held the privacy interest did not outweigh the public’s right of access.
- Court ordered filing procedures to protect sensitive administrative material (sealed e‑filing and limited remote access), denied the anonymity motion, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend (20 days).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing anonymously without prior court permission requires dismissal under Rule 10(a) | Doe implicitly argued filing anonymously was permissible and later sought leave to proceed under a pseudonym | Argued unnamed plaintiff must obtain court permission before filing; otherwise no case is commenced and court lacks jurisdiction | Court refused to follow Tenth Circuit rule; held Ninth Circuit does not require pre‑filing leave and addressed motions on the merits |
| Whether plaintiff may proceed anonymously under Ninth Circuit balancing test | Doe argued his status as a well‑known lawyer and serious mental health conditions (and sensitive medical/ employment records) justify anonymity to avoid stigma and harm | Defendants argued no risk of physical harm or exceptional stigma; embarrassment and career concerns insufficient; prejudice can be mitigated by protective orders | Court held Doe’s circumstances are not sufficiently unusual or stigmatizing to overcome the presumption of open proceedings; denied pseudonym request but ordered protective measures for confidential records |
Key Cases Cited
- Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) (sets Ninth Circuit balancing test for pseudonymous litigation)
- Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizes default presumption that plaintiffs use their true names)
- United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (identity of parties normally not concealed except in unusual cases)
- United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1981) (pseudonym may be used to protect against harassment, injury, ridicule or embarrassment)
- Doe v. Ayers, 789 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting pseudonym proper only in exceptional cases)
- Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1975) (public right of access to judicial proceedings)
- W.N.J. & J.A.S. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2001) (requires leave before filing anonymously — Court declined to follow this rule)
- Nat’l Commodity & Barter Ass’n v. Gibbs, 886 F.2d 1240 (10th Cir. 1989) (same jurisdictional rule cited by defendants)