Doe v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
John Doe,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNUM Life Insurance Company of
America,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-04681-PHX-JJT
ORDER
At issue is Plaintiff John Doe’s Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym
(Doc. 2). In the Ninth Circuit, “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.”
Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Courts
should consider factors such as “the severity of the threatened harm,” “the reasonableness
of the anonymous party’s fears,” and “the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such
retaliation.” Id. Courts “must also determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the
proceedings to the opposing party, and whether proceedings may be structured to as to
mitigate that prejudice.” Id. (addressing a request to proceed anonymously in a case of
threatened retaliation). Finally, courts “must decide whether the public’s interest in the case
would be best served by requiring that the litigants reveal their identities.” Id.
First, Plaintiff alleges that he is a complex commercial litigator suffering from long-
haul COVID and autoimmune disorders that have rendered him eligible for benefits under
Case 2:25-cv-04681-JJT Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a long-term disability policy and individual disability income policy. (Id. at 1; see also
Doc. 1.) Plaintiff currently works part-time “by handling limited clients and working
limited hours under the direction of his physician.” (Doc. 2 at 4.) Plaintiff argues that he
would be embarrassed and financially harmed if his identity was made public in light of
his medical conditions. According to Plaintiff, public knowledge of his medical conditions
could “jeopardize his ability to continue practicing and to obtain new clients and expose
weaknesses to opposing parties.” (Id. at 6.) Insofar as this case allegedly turns on sensitive
medical records that, according to Plaintiff, would impede his livelihood, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s fear of embarrassment and financial harm is reasonable. However, the Court
makes no finding as to the severity of the threatened harm because Plaintiff presents no
credible evidence that potential clients, opposing parties, or the public would, or is likely
to, cast embarrassment or destitution upon Plaintiff based on his medical conditions.
Second, Plaintiff argues that the “public has no legitimate interest in connecting
Plaintiff’s real name to the extremely private medical facts that the Court will need to
consider in this case.” (Id. at 3.) He asserts the public would be benefitted by allowing
Plaintiff to proceed anonymously because he will not be discouraged from openly litigating
the sensitive medical issues underlying his claims. (Id. at 3–4.) At this early stage, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s anonymity would not “obstruct the public’s view of the issues joined
or the court’s performance in resolving them” because his medical information from which
the operative issues arise would be publicly available, even if not connected to his identity.
Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068–69 (quoting Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185
(5th Cir. 1981)).
Lastly, Plaintiff contends that Defendant will suffer no prejudice if he proceeds
anonymously in this action because Defendant is aware of his identity through the group
policy and claim numbers contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 2 at 2.) The Court has
not yet heard from Defendant because service has not been completed. Still, given the
identifying information located in the Complaint, the Court finds that, Defendant is not
Case 2:25-cv-04681-JJT Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prejudiced by Plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym at this stage. The Court will provide
Defendant an opportunity to object to Plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym after it is served.
The public has a “common law right of access to judicial proceedings.” Advanced
Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1067. Still, Plaintiff’s interest in preserving his anonymity
outweighs the public’s interest and does not prejudice Defendant at this early stage of the
proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym for the course of
pretrial proceedings, and all filings to the Court shall refer to Plaintiff as “Plaintiff” or
“John Doe.” No later than fourteen days after service, Defendant may file an objection to
Plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym, to which Plaintiff may file a reply.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
Under a Pseudonym (Doc. 2). Plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym for the course of
pretrial proceedings, and all filings to the Court shall refer to Plaintiff as “Plaintiff” or
“John Doe.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than fourteen days after service,
Defendant may file an objection to Plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym, to which Plaintiff may
file a reply.
Dated this 5th day of January, 2026.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-04681-JJT Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3