Roe v. Smith: California courts tighten the rules for suing anonymously.
Can you sue under a fake name in California? After Roe v. Smith (Nov. 21, 2025), the Court of Appeal's answer is: only rarely, only with evidence, and almost never if you are a defamation plaintiff.
The case
Two former high school students — a dating couple — sued a classmate and her mother for defamation, alleging the defendants falsely accused the young man of sexual assault. A school investigation had cleared him. The plaintiffs filed as "Jane Roe" and "John Doe," and the trial court let them, reasoning that the allegations were highly sensitive and future employers might find the case online.
The First Amendment Coalition appealed, and the Second District reversed. The plaintiffs must litigate under their real names.
Why the plaintiffs lost
The court held that anonymity in civil litigation implicates the public's First Amendment right of access to the courts. Before granting a pseudonym, a trial court must apply the "overriding interest" test of California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d) — the same demanding standard that governs sealing records — and must make express factual findings that the party's interest overrides public access, that the request is narrowly tailored, and that no less restrictive means exists.
The plaintiffs' motion failed at nearly every step. They submitted no declarations or evidence — only argument on the pleadings. Their asserted harm was that future employers might discover the allegations, which the court called "precisely the kind of reputational harm cases have routinely held is insufficient." They were adults when they filed, so no minor's interests were at stake. And the court noted the paradox at the heart of an anonymous defamation suit: a plaintiff suing to clear his name cannot clear it while hiding it. Anonymity would let him keep the shield if he loses and drop it if he wins.
What the decision does not do
Roe v. Smith does not close the courthouse door on anonymous filing. The court reaffirmed that two interests can justify a pseudonym: privacy in highly sensitive and personal matters — a category that includes sexual conduct, medical and psychological records, and gender identity — and the risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm. Statutory protections, such as Code of Civil Procedure section 367.3 for Safe at Home participants, are untouched. Survivors of sexual abuse who present real evidence of the harm public exposure would cause remain in the strongest position the case law recognizes.
Practice pointers
The opinion is a roadmap for doing it right. File the motion at the outset. Support it with sworn declarations detailing specific harm — not conclusory fears of embarrassment. Tailor the request narrowly and be ready to show no lesser measure, such as a protective order, would suffice. Provide the party's true name to the court under seal so it can run a recusal check. And do not assume a stipulation solves the problem: even when all parties agree to anonymity, the court must independently protect the public's right of access.
If you are weighing a claim where privacy is a concern, the difference between a granted and a denied pseudonym motion is preparation. I am happy to discuss your situation in a confidential consultation.
What this post is not. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Yisrael Gelb · Gelb Law APC | Beverly Hills, CA · yisrael@gelblawapc.com · (323) 632-6864