T.S. v. Body Contour Centers LLC
2:24-cv-01944
W.D. Wash.
Jul 7, 2025
Check Treatment
Docket

T.S., Plaintiff, v. BODY CONTOUR CENTERS, LLC d/b/a SONO BELLO, Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01944-LK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

July 7, 2025

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff‘s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff seeks to proceed under the pseudonym “T.S.” Id. at 2. Defendant Body Contour Centers, LLC d/b/a Sono Bello does not oppose her use of a pseudonym at this stage of the proceedings. Id. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Plaintiff‘s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this putative class action in November 2024, seeking recovery under a variety of state and federal privacy and medical confidentiality laws on behalf of “all California residents who have accessed and used [Sono Bello‘s] Website to book a consultation.” Dkt. No. 1 and 2-3. Defendant Sono Bello filed a motion to dismiss on January 31, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 17, 18, 19. Sono Bello further filed a motion to stay discovery in early April, Dkt. No. 23, which the Court has since denied, Dkt. No. 26.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires that every complaint list the names of all parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Thus, “[t]he normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” . However, “a party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party‘s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public‘s interest in knowing the party‘s identity,” including where “nondisclosure of the party‘s identity is necessary to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.” (citation modified). Courts generally allow a party to proceed anonymously in three circumstances: “(1) when identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution.” (citation modified).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff argues that “[p]seudonymity is necessary to protect [her] privacy interests in her personal and intimate medical information, including her search for a weight loss surgical procedure.” Dkt. No. 28 at 3. While “Plaintiff is currently in a position to decide to whom she discloses her health conditions and the treatment she seeks,” requiring her to proceed “under her full name will strip her of that . . control” and no longer protect her from the possibility of “harassment, embarrassment and ridicule.” Id. Further, forcing her to litigate using her true name “will cause the very injury that the litigation addresses – the public disclosure of highly sensitive, private personal information, especially health conditions and treatment thereof.” Id. at 4.

Plaintiff also argues that proceeding pseudonymously would not “interfere with the public‘s interest in this action or . . . right to an open court system,” since her individual identity is “not central to the issues raised” in her complaint. Id. (quoting . She notes that her own identity “has no hearing on the resolution of the issues raised by this case, i.e., whether Defendant‘s alleged use of tracking technologies and interception of users’ personal communications unlawfully led to the disclosure of consumers’ PII or PHI to unauthorized third parties,” and that the nature of this case as a class action militates against requiring her to disclose her name. Id. (“because this is a putative class action, most, if not all, of the class members’ identities will never be public“).

Although Sono Bello‘s non-opposition to the motion to proceed anonymously “may weigh in favor of anonymity because there is no argument of fundamental unfairness to [it],” that is ultimately not dispositive given the public interest at stake. . Courts have been reluctant to permit parties to litigate matters concerning protected medical information anonymously. For example, in , the district court determined that “potential [for] embarrassment or increased anxiety brought on by litigation d[id] not justify anonymity” in an appeal from a denial of disability benefits for serious mental and physical health issues. . “The most compelling situations [in which plaintiffs are allowed to proceed anonymously] involve matters which are highly sensitive, such as social stigmatization, real danger of physical harm, or where the injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff‘s identity.” (quoting ). This case falls into the latter category. As the court explained in ,

The central issues in this case are whether Meta improperly secured plaintiffs’ private health care information.... Requiring plaintiffs to proceed using their actual names—when their health care entities have already been disclosed and when their private health care information will be publicly discussed—will arguably cause a further and greater privacy intrusion. . . . The information plaintiffs provided to their medical providers that was improperly captured or used by Meta is at the very heart of this case . . . [and] will be discussed in open court when the parties argue about the strength of plaintiffs’ claims, as necessary to allow the public to understand my rulings and possibly a jury‘s ultimate determination. But it is unnecessary to publicly link that information with an individual at this stage in the case.

. The court further noted that “[r]equiring plaintiffs who seek to vindicate their privacy rights to publicly link their names to the [very] information they seek to protect . . . is against the public interest, as it could dissuade plaintiffs from bringing privacy cases.” .

For the same reasons, the Court finds that pseudonymity is appropriate here—at least at this stage of the case—and outweighs the countervailing considerations. The Court may revisit the issue at a later stage of the proceedings if Defendant so moves. See .

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff‘s motion, Dkt. No. 28, is GRANTED. The parties shall refer to Plaintiff by the pseudonym “T.S.” in all future filings and public proceedings in this matter.

Dated this 7th day of July, 2025.

Lauren King

United States District Judge

Read the detailed case summary