M.F. v. United Healthcare Insurance Company, 5:25-cv-07308

Plaintiffs Todd M.F. and G.K.F. sue Santa Clara County Fire Protection District entities over denial of health insurance coverage for treatment at New Vision Wilderness Therapy.
Plaintiffs move to proceed pseudonymously; defendants have not appeared.
Court, sua sponte under Local Civil Rule 7-1(b), grants without oral argument.
Due-process and public-access principles normally require real names, but anonymity is allowed in unusual cases to protect from harassment or embarrassment.
Court finds G.K.F.’s mental health diagnoses and sensitive personal history render anonymity appropriate; circumstances include ADHD, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, autism spectrum disorder, self-harm, hospitalization.
Plaintiffs may proceed as “Todd M.F.” and “G.K.F.”; defendants can later seek disclosure of full names if they show prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs may proceed pseudonymously.	Need for anonymity to protect privacy given G.K.F.’s mental health history.	No prejudice to defendants or public interest in disclosure; identity does not affect merits.	Yes; anonymity granted.

Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizes anonymity in appropriate cases)
Advanced Textile Corp. v. City & County of San Francisco, 214 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2000) (three-factor test; courts may allow anonymity when privacy outweighs public interest)