Jane Doe v. City of West Sacramento

Case: Jane Doe v. City of West Sacramento Case No. CV2026-1525 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Department Thirteen 9:00 a.m.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed under pseudonym:

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s unopposed renewed motion to proceed under pseudonym Jane Doe is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550; Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Superior Court, (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 110; Roe v. Smith, (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 227, 239; Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 767.) The Court finds that plaintiff’s need for anonymity outweighs any prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity. (Doe, supra, 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 767.)

The risk of harm to plaintiff compels this conclusion. (Doe decl., ¶¶ 1-14; Parmely decl., ¶¶ 1-11.) Further, the Court finds that the use of a pseudonym, redacting only plaintiff’s identity, is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding privacy interests and that there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interests. (Santa Ana Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Ana (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 296, 307; Parmely decl., ¶ 7.)

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.

If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal:

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s unopposed motion to file documents under seal is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, 2.551.) The Court finds that the facts establish: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(d); Doe decl., ¶¶ 1-16.)

Specifically, a person’s medical history, including psychological records, falls within the zone of informational privacy protected by the state and federal Constitutions. (Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1068.) Further, plaintiff shows that there is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed as, “[p]ublic disclosure of the medical documents would expose my private medical and psychological information to individuals who have no involvement in the litigation and would cause significant emotional distress.” (Doe decl., ¶ 7.) Finally, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest as public disclosure of plaintiff’s “personally identifying information in court records concerning these events is likely to cause

5 of 9

substantial psychological harm, increase the risk of traumatization, and interfere with her ongoing treatment and recovery.” (Parmely decl., ¶ 5.)

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following be filed under seal: (1) Plaintiff’s treating mental health provider declarations and any attached confidential mental health exhibits submitted in support of plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed under pseudonym and to file documents under seal; and (2) Plaintiff’s declarations filed in support of her motion to proceed under pseudonym and her motion to file documents under seal.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.

If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

6 of 9