govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-02937-0

1 
26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
FREE NOW FOUNDATION, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, et al., 
Defendants. 

 
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS 
TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 
 
On May 14, 2026, the Court issued an order to show cause why Plaintiff P.H. should 
be permitted to proceed by pseudonym. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiffs Free Now Foundation, 
A.T., and P.H. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) timely filed a response. (Doc. No. 5.) On May 28, 
2026, the Court held a Show Cause Hearing. (Doc. No. 6.) This Order follows. 
I. Background 
 On May 13, 2026, Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit, alleging violations of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act against Defendant Poway Unified 
School District (“PUSD”) related to P.H.’s request for A.T., a PUSD student, to be 
exempted from all vaccination requirements if and when his individualized education plan 
expires in November 2026. (Doc. No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”).) 
Case 3:26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW Document 7 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 7
 
2 
26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 Plaintiffs initially filed a nearly identical complaint on December 5, 2025, against 
the same Defendants, alleging the same claims. See Free Now Found . v. Poway Unified 
Sch. Dist., 25-cv-03452-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2025), Doc. No. 1. There, as here, 
Plaintiffs’ complaint refers to both A.T., a minor, and P.H., the minor’s mother, by their 
initials. See generally id. On April 6, the Court issued an order to show cause why P.H. 
should be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym. Free Now Found. v. Poway Unified 
Sch. Dist., 25-cv-03452-AJB-MSB S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2026), Doc. No. 9. Although the Court 
gave Plaintiffs through April 13, 2026, to file a response, Plaintiffs failed to do so. On 
April 29, 2026, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint 
no later than May 6, 2026, and warning Plaintiffs that failure to do so may result in 
dismissal of the action. Free Now Found. v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 25-cv-03452-AJB-
MSB (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2026), Doc. No. 11. Again, Plaintiffs failed to file anything. 
Accordingly, on May 7, 2026, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. Free Now 
Found. v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 25-cv-03452-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2026), Doc. 
No. 12. 
 On May 13, 2026, Plaintiffs refiled the complaint, which was randomly assigned to 
the undersigned. (See generally Compl.) In the instant action, Plaintiffs have newly alleged 
that “P.H. has requested to remain anonymous in this Case because revealing her identity 
would lead to the identification of her minor child who should be protected from potential 
retaliation and harassment.” (Compl. ¶ 15.) In response to the Order to Show Cause, 
Plaintiffs filed a response adding that “naming P.H. would likely reveal A.T.’s identity as 
well, because this action concerns a small local elementary school and a highly sensitive 
issue— whether an unvaccinated child may avoid vaccination requirements. ” (Doc. No. 5 
at 2.) Plaintiffs further assert that P.H.’s fears are reasonable and not speculative because 
“school communities are notorious for gossip,” “unvaccinated children may face scrutiny, 
stigma, or social attention in school and community settings, and public disclosure would 
increase the likelihood of that harm.” (Id.) 
 On May 28, 2026, the Court held a Show Cause Hearing. (Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiffs 
Case 3:26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW Document 7 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 7
 
3 
26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
failed to appear, file a request to appear remotely or to continue the hearing, or otherwise 
contact the Court leading up to or during the hearing. (Id.) After the hearing concluded, an 
assistant from Plaintiff Counsel’s firm sent an unauthorized email through the Court’s 
general inquiry form stating “there was confusion in [their] office” because they “believed 
it was a remote hearing[.]” 
II. Legal Standard 
“[T]he courts of this c ountry recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 
records and documents,
 including judicial records and documents. ” Nixon v. Warner 
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the 
complaint must name all the parties[.]”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1) (“ An action must be 
prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. ”). Generally, in federal court, a 
“[p]laintiff[’s] use of [a] fictitious name[] runs afoul of the public’s common law right of 
access to judicial proceedings and Rule 10(a)’s command that the title of every complaint 
‘include the names of all the parties.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. , 214 
F.3d 1058, 106 7 (9th Cir. 2000) (first citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99 and EEOC v. 
Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 169 (9th Cir. 1990); then quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). 
However, there are “special circumstances justify[ing] secrecy” wherein “many 
federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have permitted parties to proceed 
anonymously[.]”Advanced Textile Corp. , 214 F.3d at 1067. For example, federal courts 
protect the privacy of minors by requiring that any filing containing “the name of an 
individual known to be a minor” include only “the minor’s initials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 
5.2(a)(3). Additionally, “[i]n this circuit . . . parties [may] use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual 
case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from 
harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Advanced Textile Corp. , 214 
F.3d at 1067–68 (quoting United States v. Doe , 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)) . 
“[A] district court must balance the need for anonymity against the general presumption 
that parties’ identities are public information and the risk of unfairness to the opposing 
party.” Id. at 1068. 
Case 3:26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW Document 7 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 7
 
4 
26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
III. Discussion 
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that this decision is based solely on the 
merits of Plaintiffs’ response to the Order to Show Cause. Plaintiffs’ failure to appear and 
unauthorized communication with the Court had no bearing on the decision. 1 All agree 
A.T., as a minor, must appear before the Court only by his initials. See 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3). At issue is whether P.H. should be permitted to proceed by 
pseudonym, not for her own privacy, but to further safeguard A.T.’s identity. ( See 
generally Doc. No. 5.) To that end, Plaintiffs’ arguments fall into two categories: 
(1) blanket protection stemming from Rule 5.2 and (2) balancing of Ninth Circuit factors. 
The Court addresses each in turn. 
First, Plaintiffs argue that “naming P.H. would likely reveal A.T.’s identity as well” 
because, with “this action concern[ing] a small local elementary school,” “the combination 
of the child’s initials, the parent’s initials, and the specific facts alleged may be enough for 
community members to identify the family[.]” (Doc. No. 5 at 2.) The privacy protection 
afforded minors by Rule 5.2 does not go so far as to provide true anonymity. The Rule does 
not require a true pseudonym for minors; nor does it contem plate similar redactions for 
guardian ad litems or parental parties to suits involving minors. Logically, Plaintiffs’ 
argument that requiring a parent to proceed under her own name would “defeat the privacy 
protection Rule 5.2 is designed to preserve” would require all guardians ad litem to be 
referred to by initials (see Doc. No. 5 at 2)—a broad proposition unmoored from precedent. 
 
1 Plaintiffs Counsel’s assistant sending an email twenty -four minutes after the hearing was 
scheduled to commence ( four minutes after the hearing concluded) stating that counsel thought the 
appearance was remote is woefully inadequate in myriad ways. ( See Doc. No 4 at 4 (“A Show Cause 
hearing is hereby SET for May 28, 2026, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4A before the undersigned. See J. 
Battaglia Civ. Case Proc. § II.”) (emphasis in original).) J. Battaglia Civ. Case Proc. § II.A (“In-Person 
Default: Unless otherwise ordered, all law and motion hearings will be conducted in person in Courtroom 
4A of the Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, located at 221 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101.”) 
(emphasis in original). See also J. Battaglia Civ. Case Proc. §§ I.A (“Letters or emails to chambers are 
prohibited unless specifically requested by the Court.”), I.C (“Only counsel of record with knowledge of 
the case may contact chambers.”). 
Case 3:26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW Document 7 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 7
 
5 
26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Beyond citing the legal standard for proceeding by pseudonym, Plaintiffs proffer no case 
law to support their stance, nor is the Court independently aware of any. 
Second, Plaintiffs argue the need for anonymity outweighs the presumption of public 
access and risk of unfairness to PUSD. (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that (1) A.T. 
would be at “real risk” of facing “scrutiny, stigma, or social attention” in school and from 
the community for being unvaccinated and (2) PUSD will not be meaningfully prejudiced 
because they are aware of Plaintiffs’ identities. (Id.) 
“To determine whether to allow a party to proceed anonymously when the opposing 
party has objected, a district court must balance five factors: ‘(1) the severity of the 
threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears, . . . (3) the 
anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation, ’ (4) the prejudice to the opposing 
party, and (5) the public interest.” Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 
596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068). 
“The most common instances [where courts permit parties to proceed anonymously] are 
cases involving abortion, mental illness, personal safety, homosexuality, transsexuality and 
illegitimate or abandoned children in welfare cases. The common thread running t hrough 
these cases is the presence of some social stigma or the threat of physical harm to the 
plaintiffs attaching to disclosure of their identities to the public record.” Doe v. Rostker, 89 
F.R.D. 158, 161 (N.D. Cal. 1981) (citations omitted). 
Here, Plaintiffs do not allege a threat of physical harm. Instead, Plaintiffs assert that 
A.T. would likely face “scrutiny, stigma, or social attention” due to his vaccination status. 
The Court is unaware of any courts finding vaccination status to be a sensitive category for 
which social stigma would be sufficiently intense to warrant the unusual protection of 
proceeding by pseudonym. Moreover, Plaintiffs proffer no specifics, regarding severity of 
the potential harm or even what that potential harm of scrutiny, stigma, and social attention 
would be. The general possibility of a community’s social commentary or judgment on a 
member, such as posited here, has been found insufficient in other courts throughout this 
Circuit. See, e.g., Hindu Am. Found., Inc. v. Kish , No. 2:22 -CV-01656-DAD-JDP, 2024 
Case 3:26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW Document 7 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 7
 
6 
26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
WL 3794056, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2024) (“[M]erely expressing fear of disagreement 
or disapproval by community members is insufficient to support a pseudonymous 
lawsuit.”); Roe v. San Jose Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. , No. 20 -CV-02798-LHK, 2021 WL 
292035, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021) (“Yet Doe and Roe do not aver any actual threat 
or any specific people who would pose a threat. At most, Doe and Roe show that many in 
their community disagree with their beliefs. Community disagreement and any resulting 
‘embarrassment or economic harm is not enough’ to support a pseudonymous lawsuit.”); 
Am.’s Frontline Drs. v. Wilcox , No. EDCV211243JGBKKX, 2022 WL 1514044, at *3 
(C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2022) (“Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege harm or any future harassment. 
The allegations are vague, conclusory, and do not hint at potential repercussion, retaliation, 
or intimidation. Plaintiffs allege only the desire to avoid perceived intimidation or 
repercussion. Whether the on-campus community would disagree with their stance is not a 
‘risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm.’ Community disagreement which results in 
‘embarrassment . . . is not enough’ to support the use of pseudonyms.”); Day v. California 
Lutheran Univ., No. 821CV01286JLSDFM, 2022 WL 2965769, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 
2022) (“However, such evidence does not amount to threats of severe harm, as it at most 
shows that Plaintiffs fear community disapproval of their actions or social ostracization.”). 
Considering the remaining factors, the Court finds that there has been no showing 
that PUSD would be prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ request. As such, prejudice does not weigh 
against Plaintiffs’ request. Finally, although A.T. is a minor and thus a more vulnerable 
litigant, this request is not to anonymize A.T.—an action this Court has already approved 
of pursuant to Rule 5.2. Instead, Plaintiffs’ request is to protect P.H.’s identity for the 
indirect benefit of A.T. Considering that P.H. is an adult and Plaintiffs proffer no argument 
or analysis as to P.H.’s vulnerability, the Court finds this factor does not weigh in favor of 
anonymity. 
In balancing the Ninth Circuit factors, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ general 
allegations of potential “scrutiny, stigma, or social attention,” as an adult without any 
particular vulnerability alleged is insufficient to outweigh the public’s right to access and 
Case 3:26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW Document 7 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 7
 
7 
26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
the presumption that parties’ identities are public. However, the Court acknowledges that 
the record will likely include certain private medical or health information as litigation 
progresses, which may warrant protection especially in light of A.T.’s age. With that in 
mind, the parties should convene to draft a joint motion for entry of a protective order and 
consider filing motions to seal redactions of select information pursuant to the applicable 
Ninth Circuit standard in conjunction with future filings. 
IV. Conclusion 
Having found Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to 
file either (1) a first amended complaint, fully naming P.H.,
2 or (2) a notice of voluntary 
dismissal no later than June 15, 2026.3 If this action is dismissed without prejudice for any 
reason and Plaintiffs choose to file another complaint alleging the same claims asserted 
herein, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs and their counsel must file a notice of related 
case connecting the newly initiated action to this action and its predecessor concurrently 
with the new complaint. See CivLR 40.1.f. Failure to comply with this order will lead to 
the imposition of sanctions. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 1, 2026 
 
 
2 Plaintiffs are cautioned that their initial pleading also violated this district’s Civil Local Rules. See 
CivLR 5.1.a (“Each document filed, including exhibits where practicable, must be in English, plainly 
written, or typed in double space on one side of the document, line numbered in the left margin with 
not more than 28 lines per page, and letter size.”) (emphasis added), 5.1.i (listing all the information 
required on the title page of every filing). Any future non-compliant filings will be stricken. 
3 Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“Unless the dismissal order states 
otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) [for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order] 
operates as an adjudication on the merits.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), as 
amended (May 22, 1992) (“[A] district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order 
will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.”). 
Case 3:26-cv-02937-AJB-BJW Document 7 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 7

Passage view · GavelSight