Doe v. Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District et al

1
3:25-cv-03686
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
JANE DOE, an individual
Plaintiff,
v.
VALLEY 	CENTER-PAUMA 	UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT; RON MCCOWAN;
ALA HERNANDEZ; AARON LITTLE;
and DOES 2-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-03686
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED
PSEUDONYMOUSLY [DOC. 3]
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in this action under the
pseudonym “Jane Doe.” (Pl’s Mot. [Doc. 3].) Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District
(“Defendant”) filed a response in non-opposition. (Def’s Resp. [Doc. 12].) The Court
decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
pseudonymously [Doc. 3]. This order is procedural in nature and does not constitute any
factual determination on the merits.
Case 3:25-cv-03686-W-BLM Document 13 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 6

2
3:25-cv-03686
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
I. 	BACKGROUND
The following allegations are recounted solely as provided in Plaintiff’s initial
complaint. Plaintiff, a minor at all relevant times, alleges that beginning in Fall 2021 at
Valley Center Middle School, Diego Ramirez “bull[ied] and sexually harass[ed]” her and
her friends during a shared lunch period by forcing them to watch pornography and sharing
explicit “sexual facts,” including videos depicting “a nude older man masturbating and a
woman masturbating with a jar,” alongside comments about sexual violence. (Compl.
[Doc. 1] at ¶¶ 35–36.)
Although Defendant eventually issued a Stay Away Order against Diego Ramirez in
March 2022, Plaintiff claims it was not enforced and that the conduct escalated, including
a December 2022 incident in which Diego Ramirez “kick[ed] JANE DOE and another
female student in the shins during lunch.” (Compl. at ¶¶ 42, 50.) This misconduct
purportedly culminated in a February 27, 2024 exchange in which he allegedly stated, “if
I were to shoot up this school . . . you would be the first one I shoot,” followed by graphic
threats. (Id. at ¶ 53.) The complaint further alleges that, although Ramirez had been
“removed” from campus, Defendant informed Plaintiff's family days before the Fall 2024
term that he would return, prompting Plaintiff to transfer to independent study as a long-
term plan. (Id. at ¶ 79.)
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to implement recommended support systems
despite medical documentation diagnosing her as a “child victim of physical and
psychological bullying” with “post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), acute adjustment
disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and major depressive
disorder, single episode, mild.” (Compl. at ¶¶ 76–81.) Plaintiff also received counseling at
Rady’s Chadwick Center, “an accredited children’s advocacy center for traumatized
children.” (Id. at ¶ 76.) Plaintiff alleges that the independent-study placement left her with
“no one overseeing or teaching” her coursework and exacerbated symptoms including
“PTSD anxiety, depression, insomnia, social anxiety . . . and migraines.” (Id. at ¶¶ 82, 89.)
The complaint describes an academic and emotional decline from a weighted 4.4 GPA to
Case 3:25-cv-03686-W-BLM Document 13 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 6

3
3:25-cv-03686
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
withdrawal from traditional schooling, attributed to “the stress and anxiety from the
homicidal threat and hostility from the [School District],” ultimately requiring private
instruction and redoing her eleventh-grade year. (Id. at ¶¶ 82–88.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A. 	Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously
Parties may proceed under pseudonyms in the “unusual case” where concealing a
litigant’s identity “is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or
personal embarrassment.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058,
1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir.
1981)). Under Ninth Circuit precedent, parties may proceed pseudonymously only when
the need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and “the public’s interest
in knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. Assessment of prejudice includes considering
whether the opposing party already knows the litigant’s identity, because such knowledge
“lessens [a party’s] claims to be prejudiced by the use of pseudonyms.” Id. at 1069 n.11.
With respect to the public interest analysis, non-disclosure does not necessarily “obstruct
public scrutiny of the important issues,” and the public possesses an interest in allowing
meritorious claims to proceed without chilling effects. Id. at 1072–73.
The Ninth Circuit has stated that courts should determine the need for anonymity
according to the following three factors: (i) the severity of the harm with which disclosure
threatens the party; (ii) the reasonableness of the party’s fears of that harm; and (iii) the
party’s vulnerability to reprisal. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068. Matters
involving “human sexuality” may fall within the category of “sensitive and highly
personal” subjects supporting anonymity. Roes 1–2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d
990, 994 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (noting that courts have permitted anonymity in cases involving
abortion, sexual orientation, transgender identity, and sexual abuse allegations).
In John Doe 140 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, the court allowed a survivor
of clergy sexual abuse to proceed anonymously where the allegations involved repeated
Case 3:25-cv-03686-W-BLM Document 13 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 6

4
3:25-cv-03686
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
sexual abuse during private confession visits. 249 F.R.D. 358, 360. Applying the Advanced
Textile balancing test, the court emphasized that the plaintiff “would face a very real risk
of 	harassment, 	ridicule, 	and 	personal 	embarrassment,” 	and 	recognized 	that 	“[t]he
experience of sexual abuse can be deeply psychologically traumatic, and public knowledge
of such abuse can trigger new trauma even years after the fact.” Id. at 361. Therefore, risk
of retraumatization, harassment, or personal embarrassment weighs in favor of anonymity
where disclosure would expose a plaintiff to additional psychological harm and little
prejudice results from nondisclosure.
III. 	D ISCUSSION
Although Plaintiff is no longer a minor, Ninth Circuit precedent recognizes that the
perceived need for anonymity persists after a plaintiff “ages out” of minority. See
Kamehameha Schs., 625 F.3d at 1195. Accordingly, this Court will evaluate pseudonymity
based on the nature of the allegations and the interests at stake, rather than placing weight
on Plaintiff’s current age.1
The allegations in the complaint present the type of “unusual case” where it is
appropriate to protect a plaintiff from “injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment.” See
Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1067–68. Plaintiff alleges sustained and severe sexual
harassment—including being forced to watch pornography and subjected to comments
about sexual violence. This purported conduct is particularly troubling given that she was
a minor in a school setting.
Furthermore, the prejudice to Defendant is minimal. As the record reflects,
Defendant already knows Plaintiff’s identity, and Plaintiff has offered to exchange
1 At this stage, and as requested (See Def’s Resp. at 3), this Court considers the allegations in the
complaint solely for purposes of the anonymity analysis and makes no factual findings as to their truth.
Defendant’s non-opposition will also not be interpreted as admission of any fact alleged, and Defendant
retains all rights to contest and challenge Plaintiff’s allegations and claims in full.
Case 3:25-cv-03686-W-BLM Document 13 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 6

5
3:25-cv-03686
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
identifying information subject to confidentiality assurances. (Pl’s Mot. at 9.) In addition,
Defendant “does not oppose” Plaintiff proceeding as Jane Doe. (Def’s Resp. at 1.) The
central issues in this case relate to the alleged misconduct of Defendant and named officials
in permitting Diego Ramirez’s conduct to continue, and Plaintiff’s identity is not necessary
to adjudicate those claims. Where anonymity does not “obstruct public scrutiny of the
important issues,” disclosure is not necessary. See Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at
1072-73.
Moreover, courts within this Circuit have recognized issues involving “human
sexuality,” including sexual abuse and harassment, as clear examples of “sensitive and
highly personal” subjects. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 994. The allegations in
this case fall squarely within that ambit. Plaintiff alleges sexual harassment, homicidal
threats, and resulting trauma and mental-health struggles that interfered with her ability to
remain at school and perform academically at the same level. (Compl. at ¶¶ 99–108.) Taken
for the purpose of the pseudonymity analysis, these claims describe deeply personal
experiences involving a minor contending she “suffered both physical and psychological
bullying,” including PTSD, anxiety, and depression. (Id. at ¶ 76.)
In John Doe 140 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, the court recognized that a
plaintiff may face a “very real risk of harassment, ridicule, and personal embarrassment,”
and that public disclosure of sexual-abuse allegations can “trigger new trauma even years
after the fact.” 249 F.R.D. at 361. Plaintiff here alleges substantial ongoing trauma, and
this Court sees no reason to risk exacerbating that harm by requiring disclosure of her
identity at this stage. Moreover, as was the case in John Doe, Defendant already knows
Plaintiff’s 	identity, 	minimizing 	prejudice 	and 	allowing 	the 	claim 	to 	proceed
pseudonymously 	does 	not 	undermine, 	but 	may 	advance, 	the 	public’s 	interest 	in
adjudicating important questions regarding how schools purportedly respond to alleged
student harassment and safety threats. See id. Under these circumstances, permitting Jane
Doe to proceed pseudonymously balances privacy, fairness, and public access.
Case 3:25-cv-03686-W-BLM Document 13 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 6

6
3:25-cv-03686
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
IV. 	C ONCLUSION & ORDER
In balancing the nature of the allegations, the minimal prejudice to Defendant, and
the public’s continued ability to scrutinize the issues presented, this matter falls within the
limited class of “unusual cases” warranting pseudonymous treatment. See Advanced
Textile Corp., at 1067–68. Accordingly, the motion to proceed pseudonymously is
therefore GRANTED [Doc. 3].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03686-W-BLM Document 13 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 6