Plaintiff argued (with no opposition from the defendant),
Continuing below a pseudonym is suitable on this attraction as a result of the info of the underlying case immediately relate to Plaintiff’s delicate well being data. Particularly, Plaintiff alleges that Capital Well being put in a monitoring pixel on its web site that transmits its sufferers’ names and guarded well being data (PHI) to 3rd events, together with Fb and Google, with out its sufferers’ consent. This PHI is extremely delicate and consists of confidential data that sufferers communicated to Capital Well being’s web site, such because the kinds of medical appointments they made, the date of their appointments, and the particular docs who handled them.
Whereas this attraction focuses solely on Capital Well being’s conduct and whether or not it meets the check for federal officer jurisdiction, data concerning Plaintiff’s PHI will essentially be disclosed throughout the litigation of the attraction. Accordingly, it’s essential to proceed continuing with using a pseudonym to guard the confidentiality of Plaintiff’s medical data.
Plaintiff[ has] a robust privateness curiosity in continuing below a pseudonym as this case implicates her medical privateness. Certainly, the very core of Plaintiff’s claims is that Capital Well being is unlawfully disclosing data concerning her identities and medical remedy to third-parties. If Plaintiff had been required to publicly disclose her title in reference to this lawsuit, she would due to this fact undergo the very hurt for which they search redress….
This case alleges disclosure of medical data. Federal regulation presumptively views this data as personal, and well being care suppliers face felony penalties for knowingly disclosing protected well being data to a different individual….
Conversely, there aren’t any components weighing towards Plaintiff persevering with to proceed with a pseudonym. There is no such thing as a “particularly strong interest in knowing the litigant’s identities, beyond the public’s interest which is normally obtained.” Merely put, the general public doesn’t must know Plaintiff’s title to grasp the info of this attraction.
Lastly, permitting Plaintiff to proceed pursuing this attraction below a pseudonym is not going to prejudice Capital Well being’s appellate rights. This attraction focuses solely on whether or not Capital Well being ought to be thought of a federal officer for functions of federal officer jurisdiction.
Plaintiff by no means meant for both third-party firms or the general public to learn about her personal medical situations. Certainly, that’s exactly why she introduced go well with to enjoin Capital Well being from additional violating the privateness of its sufferers by promoting their well being data to Fb and Google. Plaintiff shouldn’t be required to reveal her identification as the price of litigating this case….
No, Third Circuit Choose David Porter held, in a one-judge order (not binding precedent, however a very good indication of what appellate judges are more likely to suppose, in my expertise):
Our authorized system operates below a robust presumption of public proceedings and publicly filed paperwork, together with the names of the events submitting the paperwork. Events are generally allowed to proceed anonymously in “exceptional cases” the place there’s a displaying of “severe harm” or the affordable concern of extreme hurt. “That a plaintiff may suffer embarrassment or economic harm is not enough.”
Plaintiff has not made a displaying of extreme hurt or the affordable concern of extreme hurt. Plaintiff’s movement refers to the kind of medical appointments she makes, the date of her appointments and the identification of treating physicians. That doesn’t implicate the kind of delicate privateness considerations introduced by the examples that we enumerated in Megless [the Third Circuit precedent on pseudonymity]. See additionally, Doe v. Coll. of N.J., 997 F.3d 489 (3d Cir. 2021) (affirming denial of movement to proceed anonymously the place plaintiff sought to stop “the publicizing of very personal information involving her minor children, pregnancy, and miscarriage”). Wanting that, merely desirous to proceed anonymously shouldn’t be sufficient to beat the “thumb on the scale that is the universal interest in favor of open judicial proceedings.”
Counsel is directed to supply Appellee’s title to the Clerk’s Workplace inside 10 days of the date of this order.