From A.S. v. Anthem Ins. Cos., Inc., decided Wednesday by Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia (S.D. Ind.):
Plaintiff's Motion asks to proceed semi-anonymously, using only his or her initials, "A.S." A.S. argues that proceeding under only initials is appropriate here because A.S. is an alleged victim of a healthcare data breach and is therefore concerned about "privacy and security should [A.S.'s] name be included in this action and made publicly available." A.S. contends that "[f]urther disclosure of [A.S.'s] name would permit the public, and perhaps additional criminals, to link [A.S.'s] name to the subject data breach and thereby link [A.S.] to the breach by name." Another reason to proceed semi-anonymously, says A.S., is because "the data breach involved [A.S.]'s current employer and [A.S.] desires to maintain … confidentiality as the Plaintiff in this matter on that basis as well." A.S. says Defendant "will suffer no undue prejudice" if the Court permits A.S. to proceed under initials.
"The use of fictitious names is disfavored, and the judge has an independent duty to determine whether exceptional circumstances justify such a departure from the normal method of proceeding in federal court." That is so because "judicial proceedings, civil as well as criminal, are to be conducted in public," and "[i]dentifying the parties to the proceeding is an important dimension of publicness" because "[t]he people have a right to know who is using their courts." There are narrow exceptions to the presumption of public proceedings that permit the use of fictitious names, such as "to protect the privacy of children, rape victims, and other particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses." …
