L.P. et al v. North Carolina Dental Society et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:26-cv-00104-MR
L.P. and C.P., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
NORTH CAROLINA DENTAL )
SOCIETY, NORTH CAROLINA ) MEMORANDUM OF
SERVICES FOR DENTISTRY, INC., ) DECISION AND ORDER
INTERACTIVE MEDICAL SYSTEMS )
CORPORATION, and NORTH )
CAROLINA DENTAL SOCIETY )
HEALTHCARE PLAN, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
to Proceed Anonymously [Doc. 8].
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 13, 2026, the Plaintiffs L.P. and C.P (collectively, the
“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants North Carolina Dental
Society, North Carolina Services for Dentistry, Inc., Interactive Medical
Systems Corporation, and North Carolina Dental Society Healthcare Plan
(collectively, the “Defendants”). [Doc. 1]. The Complaint sets forth two
causes of action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
Case 1:26-cv-00104-MR Document 10 Filed 05/08/26 Page 1 of 8

2
1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.: recovery of benefits under 29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), and equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) for
a violation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”),
29 U.S.C. § 1185a(a)(3)(A)(ii). [Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 85-99].
On April 13, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed the present motion asking to be
allowed to proceed anonymously. [Doc. 8]. This matter is now ripe for
disposition.1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Defendant North Carolina Dental Society Healthcare Plan (the
“Plan”) is a self-funded welfare benefits plan under ERISA. [Doc. 1 at ¶¶
7-10]. Defendant North Carolina Dental Society is the Plan’s sponsor;
Defendant North Carolina Services for Dentistry, Inc. is the Plan’s
supervisor, and Defendant Interactive Medical Systems Corporation (“IMS”)
is the Plan’s claims administrator. [Id.].
Plaintiff L.P. is enrolled in the Plan as an eligible employee of an
employer who was a member of Defendant North Carolina Dental Society.
[Id. at ¶¶ 3-4]. Plaintiff C.P. is L.P.’s dependent child and was enrolled under
1 The Defendants did not file a response to the instant motion, as no defendant has yet
made an appearance in this matter. On April 13, 2026, the Plaintiffs sent each defendant
a “Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons.” [Docs. 2-6]. The
deadline for the Defendants to respond to these waivers is May 18, 2026. [Id.].
Case 1:26-cv-00104-MR Document 10 Filed 05/08/26 Page 2 of 8

3
the Plan as a beneficiary. [Id. at ¶¶ 5-6]. At all times relevant to the present
case, L.P. was a participant in the Plan and C.P. was a beneficiary of the
Plan. [Id. at ¶¶ 2-6].
From August 2024 through June 2025, C.P. was treated at a residential
treatment facility for mental health issues. [Id. at ¶¶ 43-50]. L.P. sought to
have the cost of C.P.’s treatment at this facility covered by the Plan, but IMS
denied payment. [Id. at ¶¶ 50-52]. L.P. exhausted the appeals process with
IMS and subsequently filed this ERISA action for recovery of benefits and
equitable relief. [Id. at ¶¶ 79-81].
III. DISCUSSION
Generally, a civil complaint “must name all the parties.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 10(a). However, “in exceptional circumstances, compelling concerns
relating to personal privacy or confidentiality may warrant some degree of
anonymity in judicial proceedings, including use of a pseudonym.” Doe v.
Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 273 (4th Cir. 2014).
To determine whether such exceptional circumstances exist, a court
considers the James factors: (1) whether “the justification asserted by the
requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may
attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and
highly personal nature”; (2) “whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory
Case 1:26-cv-00104-MR Document 10 Filed 05/08/26 Page 3 of 8

4
physical or mental harm”; (3) the age of the party; (4) “whether the action is
against a governmental or private party”; and (5) “the risk of unfairness to
the opposing party.” Id. (quoting James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238 (4th
Cir. 1993)).
Additionally, because the use of pseudonyms in litigation undermines
the public’s right of access to judicial proceedings, “a district court has an
independent obligation to ensure that extraordinary circumstances support
such a request by balancing the party’s stated interest in anonymity against
the public’s interest in openness and any prejudice that anonymity would
pose to the opposing party.” Id. at 274. The Court notes that ERISA claims
routinely involve information regarding issues of health and treatment. As
such, these claims generally include at least some personal information.
This fact, however, does not convert ERISA litigation into a private
proceeding where claimants come into court under a cloak of anonymity.
Here, the Plaintiffs argue that the first James factor weighs in their favor
because this case involves sensitive information about C.P.’s mental health
challenges. [Doc. 9 at 3]. However, while the Plaintiffs do seek coverage
for mental health treatment, and the Complaint does recount C.P.’s struggles
with mental health, the facts relevant to the legal issues are not
extraordinarily sensitive. At its core, the Complaint alleges that IMS denied
Case 1:26-cv-00104-MR Document 10 Filed 05/08/26 Page 4 of 8

5
benefits for treatment that the Plaintiffs argue was covered by the Plan. This
core allegation is not sensitive or personal: it is a common assertion in any
§ 1132(a)(1)(B) action.
Courts regularly deny requests to proceed anonymously when a
plaintiff’s purported reason for the request is to protect information about his
mental health. See, e.g., Doe v. Kuhn, No. 7:23-cv-209, 2023 WL 4687209,
at *2 (W.D. Va. July 21, 2023); L.L. v. Medcost Benefit Servs., No. 1:21-cv-
00265-MR, 2023 WL 4393748, at *3-4 (W.D.N.C. July 5, 2023); Smith v.
Towson Univ., No. JRR-22-2998, 2022 WL 18142844, at *2 (D. Md. Nov. 30,
2022); Doe v. Lees-McRae College, 1:20-cv-00105-MR, 2021 WL 2673050,
at *6 (W.D.N.C. June 29, 2021). Requiring the Plaintiffs to identify
themselves by name does not require that they reveal anything more than
the general fact that C.P. struggles with mental health issues. To the extent
that the severity of C.P.’s mental health struggles must be considered during
these proceedings, that personal information can be redacted and records
detailing sensitive information can be filed under seal if appropriate.
As for the second James factor, courts may look for “aggravating
factors” or “evidence” to determine whether is “more than a bare assertion of
risk.” Doe v. Doe, 85 F.4th 206, 213 (4th Cir. 2023). The Plaintiffs
acknowledge that there is no danger of “directly retaliatory harms” if the
Case 1:26-cv-00104-MR Document 10 Filed 05/08/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Plaintiffs are not allowed to proceed anonymously. [Doc. 9 at 5 (internal
quotation marks omitted)]. Accordingly, the second favor weighs against
allowing the Plaintiffs to proceed anonymously.
As for the third James factor, Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that minors be referred to solely by their initials in court
filings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3). C.P., however, has reached the age of
majority and Rule 5.2 does not require reference by C.P.’s initials only. L.P.,
of course, was an adult when the case was filed. The Plaintiffs argue that
because C.P. is a “young adult,” and because the treatment at issue started
when C.P. was a minor, the third James factor weighs in their favor. [Doc. 9
at 5]. However, as detailed above, sensitive information regarding a then-
minor’s struggles with mental health will likely be allowed to be filed under
seal. Accordingly, requiring L.P. and C.P. to use their full names in
prosecuting this action reveals nothing more than the fact that two adults are
seeking benefits they allege are covered by their health insurance plan.
As for the fourth James factor, the Court concludes that the fact that
the Defendants are private companies weighs against allowing the Plaintiffs
to proceed anonymously. See Doe, 85 F.4th at 216 (“The district court
below . . . determined—consistent with the weight of authority—that suing
only a private individual weighs against anonymity.”).
Case 1:26-cv-00104-MR Document 10 Filed 05/08/26 Page 6 of 8

7
As for the final James factor, the Plaintiffs argue that “there is no risk
of harm to the Defendants” from the use of initials in the publicly filed
documents, since the Defendants possess “all or almost all[] of the
documents at issue in this action in unredacted form.” [Doc. 9 at 5]. The
Court concludes that because the Defendants know the Plaintiffs’ identities,
there would be no prejudice to the Defendants in allowing the Plaintiffs to
proceed anonymously and this factor weighs in favor of allowing the Plaintiffs
to proceed anonymously.
After analyzing the James factors, the Court must balance the
Plaintiffs’ interest in anonymity against the public’s interest in openness.
Doe, 85 F.4th at 211. Here, the public has a strong interest in openness. To
the extent these proceedings involve particularized, private, and sensitive
information, redactions and filing under seal can limit access when needed
without altogether concealing the identity of the litigants from the public.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that “extraordinary circumstances”
do not support allowing the Plaintiffs to proceed anonymously in this action.
The Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed anonymously is therefore denied, and the
Plaintiffs will be directed to file an Amended Complaint that includes their full
names.
Case 1:26-cv-00104-MR Document 10 Filed 05/08/26 Page 7 of 8

8
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to
Proceed Anonymously [Doc. 8] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the entry
of this Order, the Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint that contains
their full names.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: May 8, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00104-MR Document 10 Filed 05/08/26 Page 8 of 8