Patrick Collins, Inc.
v.
Does

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of CaliforniaNov 15, 2011
No. C 11-2766 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)

No. C 11-2766 MEJ Docket No. 29

11-15-2011

PATRICK COLLINS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-2,590, Defendants.


ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO


QUASH/DISMISS


(IP ADDRESS 68.192.118.56)


On November 14, 2011, an anonymous defendant noticed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which names only Doe defendants. The litigant identifies himself or herself only as "John Doe" at I.P. Address 68.192.118.56. Dkt. No. 29. Because John Doe has disclosed no identifying information, there is no way to determine whether the motion was filed by a real party in interest or a stranger to the litigation. As such, the filing is improper. The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Dkt. Nos. 29.

If John Doe wishes to appear in this action anonymously or otherwise, he or she must follow the proper procedures for doing so. At a minimum, the Court and the parties must be informed of the litigant's identity. If the litigant wishes to protect his or her identity from the public, the litigant may use a pseudonym in public filings only after receiving permission for good cause shown. Defendant is advised that the Ninth Circuit court of appeals allows the use of pseudonyms only in the most unusual cases. See, e.g., Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Maria-Elena James


Chief United States Magistrate Judge