Legal Opinion

C. R. v. Blue Shield of California

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 5, 2026No. 3:25-cv-09226Unknown

1Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA C. R., Case No. 25-cv-09226-AGT Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S v. MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Re: Dkt. No. 22 Defendant. Plaintiff C.R.’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym, dkt. 22, is granted for the reasons identified below, subject to reconsideration as the case proceeds.1 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est.,

596 F.3d 1036, 1042

(9th Cir. 2010). Parties may proceed pseudonymously only “in the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  2. Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop EstateCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
  3. Doe v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API