According to L.A. Superior Court Judge Frank Tavelman’s order last Friday in Roe v. Smith:
Plaintiffs have not followed the correct procedure for proceeding anonymously. Before a party can proceed anonymously, they must request permission from the Court to do so. This procedure is outlined in Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105 (referred to as DFEH). The Court in that case noted the following:
Procedurally, because a hearing is necessary, a party wishing to proceed anonymously will file the initial complaint or petition conditionally under a pseudonym and then request an order allowing them to proceed in that manner. If the request is granted, the initial pleading can remain. If the use of a pseudonym is denied, the pleading must be amended to include the party’s true name.
Here, no motion was made to proceed anonymously, and no hearing was held regarding the Plaintiff’s right to do so. This procedural stance is significant because it places the responsibility on the party seeking anonymity to prove an overriding interest. The Plaintiff’s failure to seek permission to proceed anonymously has essentially shifted this burden improperly to the First Amendment and Defendants. Plaintiffs have not shown the Court that they can overcome the presumption of openness provided by CRC Rule 2.550(c)….
This ruling appears to be accurate; the precedent set by the California Court of Appeal in DFEH has already clarified this, but decisions like this from trial courts serve as important reminders as well.
It is worth noting that I am involved in this case as the attorney for the First Amendment Coalition, which requested to reveal the plaintiffs’ identities (who are suing for libel); for more information on the arguments against libel plaintiffs suing under pseudonyms, refer to this post. Our motion was denied by the court without prejudice to us presenting the same arguments later, as it concluded that the plaintiff must first request anonymity, and we can then oppose that request. Special thanks to Benjamin Diamond Wofford, a recent graduate of Stanford Law School, who worked on this case.
