Doe v. County of San Diego et al

1
23-cv-0251-AGS-KSC
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
John DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 23-cv-0251-AGS-KSC
ORDER DENYING DEFENSE
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
PSEUDONYMITY (ECF 82) AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE (ECF 82-2)
In late 2022, a state judge granted plaintiff’s request to proceed pseudonymously in
this matter. (ECF 1-3, at 11.) Months later, the case was removed to federal court. (ECF 1.)
Seasons, years, and even Presidential Administrations then passed before defendant
County of San Diego moved to reconsider plaintiff’s use of a fictitious name. (See ECF 82.)
That reconsideration motion is denied as untimely.
In this district, absent exceptions that don’t apply here, “any motion or application
for reconsideration must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the ruling,
order or judgment sought to be reconsidered.” CivLR 7.1(i)(2). This defense motion was
filed almost three years after the relevant ruling. (Compare ECF 1-3, at 11 with ECF 82.)
More charitably, we might start the timer in July 2024, when this Court noted that the
proper way to challenge plaintiff’s use of a fictitious name was by “filing a motion” to
“reconsider the state court’s order.” (ECF 50, at 1.) Yet the County still waited over a year
before doing so. (See ECF 82.) By any clocking, then, the motion is late.
Of course, “in the interest of justice,” this Court may “waive the applicability” of the
28-day reconsideration deadline. CivLR 1.1(d). But the defense offers little cause to do so.
Beyond general arguments against pseudonymity, it insists that plaintiff’s “anonymity has
already imposed significant limits on the County,” and it expects similar “significant
limitations” in the future. (ECF 82-1, at 12–13.) But the only identified “limit[]” is that a
discovery dispute arose. (See id.) At the related conference, the County says the Magistrate
Judge “approved service of” one of the defense’s requested subpoenas “but not . . . two”
Case 3:23-cv-00251-AGS-GC Doc 97 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Pg 1/2

2
23-cv-0251-AGS-KSC
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
others. (Id. at 12–13.) As limitations go, this is meager stuff. In fact, the defense has not
sought any discovery-related sanctions nor reconsideration motions over this dispute,
which would seem to be the proper vehicle to remedy the plaintiff’s purported foul play.
The motion to reconsider is DENIED; the requests for judicial notice are
GRANTED; and the February 27, 2026 hearing is vacated. At the final pretrial conference,
the Court is open to hearing argument about whether pretrial pseudonymity concerns
should give way to transparency for purposes of a public trial.
Dated: February 23, 2026
___________________________
Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00251-AGS-GC Doc 97 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Pg 2/2