Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 O
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 JOHN DOE, an individual, ) CV 19-00750-RSWL-SSx
)
13 Plaintiff, )
) ORDER re: Defendant
14 ) Fowler’s Motion for
v. ) Misjoinder [26];
15 ) Plaintiff’s Motion to
) Remand [21]; Plaintiff’s
16 KEVIN SPACEY FOWLER, an ) Motion to Proceed
individual, M. PROFITT ) Anonymously [19]; and
17 PRODUCTIONS, INC., a ) Defendant Fowler’s
California Corporation, and ) Motion to Dismiss, or,
18 DOES 1-9, inclusive, ) Alternatively, to
) Require a More Definite
19 ) Statement [22]
Defendants. )
20 )
21 Currently before the Court is Defendant Kevin
22 Spacey Fowler’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Order of
23 Misjoinder re Newly-Named Defendant M. Profitt
24 Productions, Inc. (“Profitt Productions”) [26];
25 Plaintiff John Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand
26 [21]; Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Anonymously [19];
27 and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or, Alternatively,
28 to Require a More Definite Statement [22]. Having
1
Case 2:19-cv-00750-RSWL-SS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:528
1 . .”).
2 Here, Plaintiff’s FAC sufficiently demonstrates
3 that his allegations of sexual assault and battery
4 present special circumstances of a personal nature.
5 Plaintiff’s vulnerability to humiliation, harassment,
6 and threats, is further exacerbated by the nature of
7 Defendant’s status as a high-profile celebrity and the
8 media attention that comes with it. The Court finds
9 that anonymity is necessary to protect Plaintiff’s
10 privacy and to protect against any further trauma.
11 The Court further finds that there is little
12 prejudice to Defendant at this stage. The Court must
13 “determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the
14 proceedings to the opposing party, and whether
15 proceedings may be structured so as to mitigate that
16 prejudice.” Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1067.
17 Defendant argues that he is inhibited by Plaintiff’s
18 refusal to participate in the Rule 26(f) conference,
19 however the Court already addressed this in ruling on
20 Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Order to Set
21 Deadlines Under Rule 26 [31]. There, the Court denied
22 Defendant’s Application, finding that it is reasonable
23 to delay the Rule 26(f) conference given that
24 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand has been pending before
25 the Court. Order re Ex Parte Application 4-5, ECF No.
26 34. Plaintiff’s anonymity is irrelevant to the Rule
27 26(f) conference, as the only issue holding up the
28 conference was whether the Court has jurisdiction. Now
19
Case 2:19-cv-00750-RSWL-SS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:546