Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A person who filed a putative class action lawsuit against their current employer for an alleged data breach must refile the complaint using their real name, a federal magistrate judge has ruled.
The plaintiff, identified in court records as A.S., filed a lawsuit against Anthem Insurance Companies and NationsBenefits in April as an alleged victim of a health care data breach.
Arguing that publishing his or her name will increase the prospects of experiencing identity theft from the alleged data breach, A.S. filed a motion to proceed under a pseudonym. Southern District of Indiana Court Magistrate Mario Garcia denied the motion Wednesday.
In the order, Garcia ruled a person’s name is not sensitive data in and of itself and that A.S. didn’t explain how publishing his or her name would place them at further risk.
A.S. argued a public name display in association with the data breach would put them at risk of further emotional distress.
“However,” Garcia wrote, “attention brought to oneself by virtue of filing the lawsuit is not a legitimate harm in and of itself.”
According to the order, A.S.’s motion didn’t comply with the court’s Local Rule that requires a litigant seeking to proceed under a pseudonym to a notice of intention seeking leave to proceed under a pseudonym and disclose their true name with the notice being under seal.
Instead, A.S. filed an instant motion, with their true name improperly revealed within the text of the now-sealed motion.
Garcia also ruled the case does not involve disclosing “information of the utmost intimacy,” one of the six factors in a test to evaluate such requests as established in Doe v. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, in their official capacities, No. 1:09-CV-0842.
“Furthermore, to the extent sensitive medical information becomes relevant, the Court can address such information via a proper motion under S.D. Ind. L.R. 5-11 or a protective order,” the order says.
A.S. has 14 days from June 7 to re-file the complaint using their true name.
In the same order, Garcia also unsealed A.S.’s brief in support of their motion to use a pseudonym because the brief doesn’t contain the plaintiff’s real name.
The case is A. S. v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., NationsBenefits, LLC, 1:23-cv-00693.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.