O.W. v. Arizona, State of

1 WO — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA — 8 — 9 O.W., No. CV-25-00044-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants. — 14 — 15 In this action, Plaintiff O.W. alleges that in September 2023, when she was 23 years 16 old and working as a civilian kitchen worker at the Rincon Unit of the Arizona State Prison 17 Complex-Tucson, she was sexually assaulted by an inmate. (Doc. 1-1 at 18-21 ¶¶ 54-99.) 18 Based on those allegations, Plaintiff has asserted various federal and state-law claims 19 against the State of Arizona, the entities that employed her, and certain prison officials. 20 (Id. at 11-12 ¶¶ 3-9.) Although Plaintiff filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court, 21 certain Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of federal-question 22 jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) 23 At issue here is the fact that Plaintiff did not file suit under her true name. Instead, 24 “[d]ue to the nature of the claims made,” Plaintiff chose to identify herself in the complaint 25 only “by her initials.” (Doc. 1-1 at 10 ¶ 1.) In the Rule 26(f) report, Plaintiff states that 26 she “is open to the Court’s directives as to how to make Plaintiff’s identity known to the 27 Court without providing it in this publicly available report (i.e., a notice under seal, etc.).” 28 (Doc. 19 at 2.) 1 Generally, the “use of fictitious names runs afoul of the public’s common law right 2 of access to judicial proceedings and Rule 10(a)’s command that the title of every 3 complaint ‘include the names of all the parties.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile 4 Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). “Nevertheless, 5 many federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have permitted parties to proceed 6 anonymously when special circumstances justify secrecy.” Id. One circumstance in which 7 “courts have permitted plaintiffs to use pseudonyms” is “when anonymity is necessary to 8 preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature.” Id. at 1068 (internal 9 quotation marks omitted). “[A] district court must balance the need for anonymity against 10 the general presumption that parties’ identities are public information and the risk of 11 unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. “District courts have broad discretion to determine 12 whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously.” Doe No. 1 v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., 2022 WL 13 3214651, *4 (D. Nev. 2022). 14 “With regard to allegations of sexual assault, several courts have concluded that any 15 prejudice the defendant may face does not favor requiring the plaintiff to disclose her 16 identity, and that the public’s interest in allowing alleged victims of sexual assault to 17 proceed anonymously outweighs any public interest in the plaintiff’s identity.” Doe K.G. 18 v. Pasadena Hospital Ass’n, Ltd., 2019 WL 1612828 , *1 (C.D. Cal. 2019); see also id. 19 (“Given the serious and sensitive nature of the allegations . . . , there is a high likelihood 20 Plaintiffs will suffer personal embarrassment and further emotional injury if forced to 21 proceed in this litigation under their real names. Such personal embarrassment and 22 emotional injury outweighs any potential prejudice to Defendants. Further, as other courts 23 have held, allowing sexual assault victims to proceed anonymously serves a strong public 24 interest in protecting their identities so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting 25 such crimes.”). Indeed, “[m]any cases allow people who allege they were sexually 26 assaulted to be pseudonymous,” although this approach is not absolute. Eugene Volokh, 27 The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation, 73 Hastings L.J. 1353 , 1409 (2022); see also Doe v. 28 Loyola Univ. Chicago, 100 F.4th 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2024) (“Courts often extend the 1 || protection of anonymity to victims of sex crimes... .”); Wynn Resorts, 2022 WL 3214651 2|| at *8 (differentiating “sexual harassment” from “sexual assault” for purposes of 3 || determining whether to allow plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms). 4 The Court concludes that O.W. may proceed under a pseudonym during the pretrial 5 || phase of this case. “In cases where the plaintiffs have demonstrated a need for anonymity, 6|| the district court should use its powers to manage pretrial proceedings, and to issue protective orders limiting disclosure of the party’s name, to preserve the party’s anonymity 8 || to the greatest extent possible without prejudicing the opposing party’s ability to litigate 9|| the case.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1069 (internal citations omitted). Whether || this approach will continue at trial will be addressed, if necessary, at a later date, after giving all parties an opportunity to be heard. “[T]he balance between a party’s need for 12 || anonymity and the interests weighing in favor of open judicial proceedings may change as || the litigation progresses.” Jd. Additionally, if Defendants disagree with this initial 14]| determination that O.W. may proceed under a pseudonym, they may file a motion 15 || challenging it. 16 Dated this 26th day of February, 2025. — 17 — 18 Lom ee” 19 f □□ □□ Dominic W. Lanza 20 United States District Judge — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 — -3-