“If a court grants permission [to proceed pseudonymously], it is often with the requirement that the real names of the plaintiffs be disclosed to the defense and the court but kept under seal thereafter.” (citing Nat’l Commodity & Barter Ass’n, 886 F.2d at 1245)
How later courts described this case
- “If a court grants permission [to proceed pseudonymously], it is often with the requirement that the real names of the plaintiffs be disclosed to the defense and the court but kept under seal thereafter.” (citing Nat’l Commodity & Barter Ass’n, 886 F.2d at 1245)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
DANIEL G., MOLLY G., and N.G., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
Plaintiffs, FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
ANONYMOUSLY
v.
Case No. 2:24-cv-00623-RJS-CMR
GOOGLE, et al.,
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
I. BACKGROUND
N.G. and his parents Daniel G. and Molly G. (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought this action
alleging Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29
U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., by denying insurance coverage for care N.G. received as a minor (ECF 2).
Because Plaintiffs filed this case using initials and partial names, the court ordered them to file
either an amended complaint under their full names or a motion for leave to proceed under initials
(ECF 15). Plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed under initials (ECF 16). Defendants failed to file a
response to the Motion, and the time for doing so has passed. See DUCivR 7-1(a)(4)(D)(ii) (“A
response to a motion must be filed within 14 days after service of the motion.”). Defendants’ failure
to respond is grounds for granting the Motion. See DUCivR 7-1(f) (“[F]ailure to respond timely to
a motion may result in the court granting the motion without further notice.”). Because this case
involves N.G.’s highly sensitive and personal health information, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Under Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he title of the complaint must
name all the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a) (requiring an action to
“be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest”). “Absent permission by the district court
to proceed anonymously, . . . the federal courts lack jurisdiction over the unnamed parties, as a
case has not been commenced with respect to them.” Nat’l Commodity & Barter Ass’n v. Gibbs,
886 F.2d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir. 1989). However, Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that minors may be named using initials unless the court orders otherwise. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5.2(a)(3). Additionally, a party may proceed anonymously in “exceptional cases involving
matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature, real danger of physical harm, or where the injury
litigated against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of the [party’s] identity.” Femedeer
v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th
Cir. 1992)). In deciding whether to permit anonymity, courts exercise discretion in weighing these
privacy interests against the public’s interest in access to legal proceedings. See id.
III. DISCUSSION
Where this case involves highly sensitive and personal health information, the motion is
granted. Plaintiffs’ complaint contains sensitive details about N.G.’s personal circumstances and
the serious mental health issues he confronted as a minor (ECF 2). Because this information is
“of a highly sensitive and personal nature,” N.G. has a strong interest in the protection of his
identity. Femedeer, 227 F.3d at 1246 (quoting Frank, 951 F.2d at 324). Moreover, this case
relates to care N.G. received as a child (ECF 2).1 Additionally, Daniel G. and Molly G.’s
anonymity is warranted where disclosure of their full names would reveal N.G.’s identity.2
Further, public interest in the identities of the parties in this proceeding appears limited.
This case does not involve the sorts of important public issues giving rise to common interest—
such as cases “attacking the constitutionality of popularly enacted legislation.” See Femedeer, 227
F.3d at 1246. Instead, this case involves private individuals challenging the denial of insurance
benefits for care received by a minor. Any public interest in this case is limited (at least at this
time) to the precedential or persuasive value of the rulings in the case. The use of pseudonyms
does not diminish this value.
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed anonymously is GRANTED.
2. On or before May 9, 2025, Plaintiffs must file under seal with the court a document
containing the full names of Daniel G., Molly G., and N.G. That filing shall remain under seal
unless the court orders otherwise.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 See Tony M. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., No. 2:19-CV-00165-RJS-JCB, 2025 WL 357724, at *4 (D. Utah Jan. 31,
2025) (permitting ERISA plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously where the case related to medical care the plaintiff
received as a minor); Doe v. USD No. 237 Smith Ctr. Sch. Dist., No. 16-CV-2801-JWL-TJJ, 2017 WL 3839416, at
*31 (D. Kan. Sept. 1, 2017) (“The fact that Doe was a minor at all times material to the allegations of the complaint
is at the forefront of the Court’s analysis [of whether the plaintiff could proceed pseudonymously].”).
2 See S.E.S. v. Galena Unified Sch. Dist. No. 499, No. 18-2042-DDC-GEB, 2018 WL 3389878, at *4 (D. Kan. July
12, 2018) (noting a child “and his parents share common privacy interests based on their inseparable relationship,”
because disclosure of a parent’s identity would effectively disclose the child’s identity).
3 See W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001) (“If a court grants permission [to proceed
pseudonymously], it is often with the requirement that the real names of the plaintiffs be disclosed to the defense and
the court but kept under seal thereafter.” (citing Nat’l Commodity & Barter Ass’n, 886 F.2d at 1245)).
DATED this 12 May 2025.
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
United States District Court for the District of Utah