Jane Doe v. Drift Santa Barbara, LLC, et al.

Case Number

25CV00638

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 08/27/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion of Plaintiff “Jane Doe” to Proceed Under a Pseudonym

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Jane Doe: Alison M. Bernal, Jordan T. Porter, Nye Stirling Hale & M Miller LLP

For Defendants Drift Santa Barbara, LLC and Drift Santa Barbara F&B, LLC: Douglas C. Reinbold, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

                       

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym is denied.
2. Plaintiff shall file and serve an amended complaint that uses her full legal name no later than September 3, 2025. No additional modifications to the complaint shall be made, other than to reflect Plaintiff’s true name, without filing a properly noticed motion.
3. Defendants’ answer to the original complaint shall be deemed their answer to the amended complaint.
4. Any further filings by Plaintiff, in this action, shall be captioned with her true name.

Background

This action commenced on January 28, 2025, by the filing of the Judicial Council form complaint by Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) against Drift Santa Barbara, LLC and Drift Santa Barbara F&B, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) for personal injury.

As alleged in the complaint:

On February 3, 2024, Plaintiff and her fiancé were guests of the Drift Hotel in Santa Barbara (the “hotel”). Plaintiff’s hotel room was very small, consisting of a bed, bathroom, and a small counter which had an electric kettle. Defendants provided paper cups and plastic lids for use with the kettle, but did not provide ceramic cups, Styrofoam cups, or “hot” sleeves. That evening, Plaintiff made herself a cup of tea using the kettle. When Plaintiff picked up the cup and sat on the bed, the cup was extremely hot, so she moved to hold the cup by the lid. The lid detached from the cup, due to the heat of the water, and the entire cup of scalding tea fell onto Plaintiff’s lap and onto her bare legs. Plaintiff suffered severe burns to her upper right thigh and genital area, including a partial thickness burn to her genitalia, blistering, and blanching erythema of the mons pubis and labia majora bilaterally.

On June 10, 2025, Defendants answered the complaint with a general denial and 23 affirmative defenses.

Also on June 10, 2025, Defendants filed an objection to Plaintiff’s use of a “Jane Doe” pseudonym. Among other arguments, Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not follow the proper procedure to initiate the case using a pseudonym. Defendant is correct in this respect.

On June 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed the present motion to proceed under a pseudonym.

Defendants oppose the motion.

Analysis

As an initial matter, in opposition to the motion by Defendants, and in reply to Defendants’ opposition by Plaintiff, counsel cite unpublished superior Court decisions: Doe v. Ktla Props. Ltd. P’ship, Doe v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Doe v. Young, and Doe v. Second St. Corp. With very limited exceptions, not present here, unpublished cases have no precedential value, and it is improper for an attorney to cite them in support of, or in opposition to, a motion. See for example: California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a); Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360, 399.) The unpublished trial Court decisions will not be considered, and counsel is reminded of their obligation to fully comply with the California Rules of Court.

“Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.)

The Court notes that no California statute expressly permits Jane Doe to proceed using a pseudonym.

“Public access to Court proceedings is essential to a functioning democracy. It promotes trust in the integrity of the Court system, and it exposes abuses of judicial power to public scrutiny. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1221, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 980 P.2d 337 (KNBC).) The right of public access applies not only to criminal cases, but also to civil proceedings like this one. (Id. at p. 1222, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 980 P.2d 337.) And the right to access Court proceedings necessarily includes the right to know the identity of the parties. (Id. at p. 1211, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 980 P.2d 337 [public has a general right of access to civil proceedings; by submitting a dispute to resolution in Court, litigants should anticipate the proceedings will be adjudicated in public].)” (Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 110-111 (Department).)

“Much like closing the Courtroom or sealing a Court record, allowing a party to litigate anonymously impacts the First Amendment public access right. Before a party to a civil action can be permitted to use a pseudonym, the trial Court must conduct a hearing and apply the overriding interest test: A party’s request for anonymity should be granted only if the Court finds that an overriding interest will likely be prejudiced without use of a pseudonym, and that it is not feasible to protect the interest with less impact on the constitutional right of access. In deciding the issue, the Court must bear in mind the critical importance of the public’s right to access judicial proceedings. Outside of cases where anonymity is expressly permitted by statute, litigating by pseudonym should occur “ ‘only in the rarest of circumstances.’ ” [Citation.]” (Department, supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at pp. 111-112; accord Santa Ana Police Officers Assn. v. City of Santa Ana (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 296, 308.)

Plaintiff argues that her privacy interests override the right of public access. Specifically, Plaintiff argues:

“Here, not only did Plaintiff suffer severe, painful injuries, but the injuries are equally embarrassing as they are first- and second-degree burn[s], including a partial thickness burn of female genitalia, blistering of the right hip and groin region, with blanching erythema or the mons pubic and labia majora. Due to sensitive nature, Plaintiff is warranted in being fearful that public dissemination of her true identity would reasonably result in further harm in the form of emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and embarrassment, in both her personal and professional lives. Plaintiff is a practicing dentist and does not want her patients and colleagues to know about the painful injuries to her private areas.” (Motion, p. 4, l. 22 – p. 5, l. 4.)

In opposition Defendants argue:

“Plaintiff has alleged a garden-variety negligence and premises liability claim against Defendants arising out of her accidentally spilling hot water onto her lap. The mere fact that Plaintiff’s injuries are sensitive or potentially embarrassing does not justify overriding the public’s constitutional right of access to judicial proceedings.” (Opp., p. 2, ll. 5-9.)

Plaintiff provides no declaration, or other evidence, that supports her conclusory claims that she would suffer emotional distress, anxiety, depression, or embarrassment in her personal and professional life if she is required to bring this action in her true name. Nor does Plaintiff provide any persuasive case authority that supports her contention of an overriding interest. This is a personal injury action where Plaintiff alleges that she suffered burn injuries. While the nature of the injuries may be embarrassing to Plaintiff, that embarrassment does not weigh in favor of allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym. The vast majority of cases that are filed in the Courts have elements that Plaintiffs, as well as Defendants, would find embarrassing, but, without substantially more, that cannot be a basis to deprive the public of their First Amendment public access rights.

Without minimizing Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, the Court notes that many published cases have found denial of a motion to proceed pseudonymously proper in situations that appear much more extreme than the facts alleged in this case.

The Court, having applied the overriding interest test, does not find that an overriding interest will likely be prejudiced without use of a pseudonym. As such, the motion will be denied.

“Procedurally, because a hearing is required, a party who wants to proceed anonymously will file the initial complaint or petition conditionally under a pseudonym and then move for an order granting permission to proceed that way. If the request is granted, the initial pleading can remain. If pseudonym use is denied, the pleading must be amended to state the party’s true name.” (Department, supra,  82 Cal.App.5th at p. 112, fn. 1.)

Plaintiff will be ordered to file an amended complaint that states her true name.