D. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
ROBERT D., individually and on behalf of
H.D., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD of NORTH
CAROLINA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Case No. 1:26-cv-00003-AMA-JCB
District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
Before the court is a motion to proceed anonymously filed by Plaintiff Robert D.
(“Robert D.”), individually and on behalf of H.D., a minor (“Plaintiff”).1 For the reasons
explained below, the court grants the motion.
B ACKGROUND
This case concerns Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina’s (“Defendant”)
denial of health insurance benefits for H.D.’s care.2 Plaintiff’s complaint provides a detailed
account of the struggles H.D. went through as a minor, including issues with impulse control,
aggression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and self-harming.3 Plaintiff presented
extensive evidence from H.D.’s medical records—including sensitive and personal information
about H.D.’s mental health history as a minor—in support of appeals asserting that H.D.’s care at
1 ECF No. 5.
2 See generally ECF No. 1.
3 See generally id.
Case 1:26-cv-00003-AMA Document 6 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 5

2
Ironwood Maine and Elevations Residential Treatment Center should have been covered by
Defendant.4
L EGAL S TANDARDS
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, “[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties.”5
However, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 provides that minors must be named by initials unless the court
orders otherwise.6 No provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits “suits by
persons using fictitious names” or “anonymous plaintiffs.”7 However, “exceptional
circumstances” may warrant “some form of anonymity in judicial proceedings.”8 Exceptional
circumstances include those cases “involving matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature,
real danger of physical harm, or where the injury litigated against would be incurred as a result
of the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity.”9 In deciding whether to preserve anonymity, the
court weighs any exceptional circumstances against the public’s interest in access to legal
proceedings.10 Courts enjoy “discretion [in] allow[ing] a plaintiff to proceed using a
pseudonym.”11 If a court grants permission for plaintiffs to proceed anonymously, “it is often
4 See generally ECF No. 1.
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a).
6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3).
7 Nat’l Commodity & Barter Ass’n, Nat’l Commodity Exch. v. Gibbs, 886 F.2d 1240, 1245 (10th
Cir. 1989).
8 Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000).
9 Id. (quotations and citation omitted).
10 Id.
11 U.S. Dep’t of Just. v. Utah Dep’t of Com., No. 2:16-cv-00611-DN-DBP, 2017 WL 963203, at
*1 (D. Utah Mar. 10, 2007) (citing Lindsey v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 592 F.2d 1118, 1125 (10th
Cir. 1979)).
Case 1:26-cv-00003-AMA Document 6 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 5

3
with the requirement that the real names of the plaintiffs be disclosed to the defense and the court
but kept under seal thereafter.”12 When no permission is granted, “the federal courts lack
jurisdiction over the unnamed parties, as a case has not been commenced with respect to
them.”13
ANALYSIS
The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously because this case implicates
“exceptional circumstances” that the Tenth Circuit and Rule 5.2 recognize as warranting
anonymity. Several reasons weigh in favor of protecting the identities of Robert D. and H.D. in
this case. The court takes each in turn.
First, the medical records in this case refer to H.D.’s struggles before the age of 18.14
Rule 5.2(a)(3) requires litigants to protect the identity of a minor by using only the minor’s
initials when filing pleadings. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case using H.D.’s
initials to protect H.D.’s identity. Even if H.D. is no longer under the age of 18, courts recognize
the appropriateness of preventing the names of minors from being disclosed past the date they
reach majority, particularly where they may be burdened in adulthood by their actions as
minors.15 Although H.D.’s father, Robert D., was not a minor at any relevant time, disclosure of
12 W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001).
13 Id. (quotations and citation omitted).
14 See generally ECF No. 1. See also ECF No. 5 at 2.
15 See, e.g., N.E. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.C., No. 1:21CV684, 2023 WL 2696834, at *15
(M.D.N.C. Feb. 24, 2023) (providing, in another ERISA case concerning mental health care, that
“although [the plaintiff] is no longer a minor, [he] was a minor when the facts underlying this
case occurred, which . . . weighs in favor of protecting his identity and by extension, [his
parent’s] identity”); Doe v. USD No. 237, No. 16-cv-2801-JWL-TJJ, 2017 WL 3839416, *11 (D.
Kan. Sept. 1, 2017) (concluding that “[t]he fact that Doe was a minor at all times material to the
Case 1:26-cv-00003-AMA Document 6 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 5

4
Robert D.’s full name would have the impact of revealing H.D.’s identity and thus would violate
the spirit of Rule 5.2(a)(3) and the policies preventing disclosure of records relating to minors.16
Second, a substantial portion of the record in this case comprises H.D.’s protected health
information and records relating to H.D.’s treatment. Even absent any discussion of H.D.’s age,
those records are protected from public disclosure by HIPAA.17 Moreover, the highly sensitive
and personal medical issues experienced by H.D. constitute an “exceptional circumstance” that
weighs against disclosure of the identities of Robert D. and H.D.
Finally, the identities of Robert D. and H.D. are known to Defendant, as Defendant
insured Plaintiff and administered the coverage for the health insurance plan. Consequently,
allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously does not prejudice Defendant.
In sum, the public interest in access to the identities of Robert D. and H.D. appears
relatively limited compared to the interest in protecting the identities of Robert D. and H.D. and
matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature. Therefore, the court concludes that Plaintiff
should be permitted to proceed anonymously.
O RDER
For the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS:
allegations of the complaint is at the forefront of the [c]ourt’s analysis” when considering
whether Doe should be allowed to proceed anonymously).
16 See, e.g., S.E.S. v. Galena Unified Sch. Dist. No. 499, No. 18-2042-DDC-GEB, 2018 WL
3389878, at *2 (D. Kan. July 12, 2018) (concluding that although adult parents do not enjoy a
heightened privacy interest themselves, a child “and his parents share common privacy interests
based on their inseparable relationship to one another” and that “[o]rdering disclosure of the
parent[s’] identities” would effectively reveal the child’s identity and “place—in effect—
personally identifiable and confidential information about the . . . minor in the public record”).
17 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq.
Case 1:26-cv-00003-AMA Document 6 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 5

5
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously18 is GRANTED.
2. 	On or before February 3, 2026, Plaintiff must file under seal with the court a
document containing the full names of Robert D. and H.D. That filing shall
remain under seal unless the court orders otherwise.19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 20th day of January 2026.
BY THE COURT:
JARED C. BENNETT
United States Magistrate Judge
18 ECF No. 5.
19 W.N.J., 257 F.3d at 1171 (“If a court grants permission [to proceed anonymously], it is often
with the requirement that the real names of the plaintiffs be disclosed to the defense and the court
but kept under seal thereafter.”).
Case 1:26-cv-00003-AMA Document 6 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 5