Can California "Safe at Home" Law Be Used to Retroactively Seal or Pseudonymize Past Federal Cases?

The California "Safe at Home Confidential Address Program" provides for special forwarding addresses for people who swear that they are "attempting to escape from actual or threatened domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or elder or dependent adult abuse," and need to "establish new names or addresses in order to prevent their assailants or probable assailants from finding them" (and possibly provide some corroborating evidence).

And Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 367.3, enacted in 2019, adds to that:

A protected person who is a party in a civil proceeding may proceed using a pseudonym, either John Doe, Jane Doe, or Doe, for the true name of the protected person and may exclude or redact from all pleadings and documents filed in the action other identifying characteristics of the protected person.

Such litigants must confidentially inform the other parties and the court of their true identity, but the identity may not appear in the court records. No showing is required of any specific reason for pseudonymity, beyond the person's participation in the Safe at Home program.

Does this mean that a person, just by joining the Safe at Home program, may also retroactively reopen his past cases, and then get them sealed or pseudonymized? Several recent federal decisions, all apparently involving one litigant (a self-described "avid blogger on record sealing expungement, and First Amendment issues"), deal with the subject. Here's the latest judicial response, from Judge Kent Gloria Navarro's opinion today in Del Nero v. All State Ins. Co. (D. Nev.), to that litigant, who had earlier had some (though mixed) success in his campaign:

Plaintiff is a participant in California's Safe at Home Program. California's Safe at Home Program protects crime victims by providing a substitute address that California state and local agencies use for public records. Cal. Gov't Code § 6207(a). In accordance with the Safe at Home Legislation, the California Code of Civil procedure designates Stay at Home participants as "protected persons," which allows them to use a pseudonym and redact identifying characteristics when filing court documents. The California Code also authorizes a protected person to seek leave to seal the public file.

In 2000, this case, which involved an alleged breach of contract, was transferred to this Court from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Twenty-two years later, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion to Seal, contending that his membership in the Safe at Home Program provided sufficient reason to seal the entire record in this case, or, alternatively, to redact the case and replace his name with a pseudonym. The Magistrate Judge found neither of Plaintiff's requested forms of relief was warranted, and the Court subsequently adopted the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion to Seal, which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration….

Plaintiff raises three arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration, presumably to show newly discovered evidence demonstrating that the Court committed clear error and that its Order was manifestly unjust. First, Plaintiff argues California's Safe at Home Program has been amended to provide broader protections for participants, demonstrating that "California law presumes Plaintiff is endangered." Second, Plaintiff advances that because other federal courts have either sealed cases brought by him or allowed him to proceed pseudonymously, this Court is compelled to reach the same outcome. Finally, Plaintiff argues he is "under new threats [of danger] as a result of bringing to the attention of authorities Las Vegas attorney [that] Thomas Michaelides forged a court order" in a lawsuit against Plaintiff in state court….

As to Plaintiff's contention that California's strengthening of its Safe at Home Program demonstrates that sealing or proceeding pseudonymously is appropriate, his argument ignores the fact that federal law rather than state law applies to this issue. Indeed, the [courts] which have considered this issue are in lockstep that federal law applies. See Doe v. University Accounting Service, LLC, No. 09-cv-01563, 2022 WL 623913, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2022); Doe v. Collecto, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-00244, 2021 WL 3199210, at *1 (D. Nev. July 27, 2021); Chaker-Delnero v. Butler & Hailey, No. 2:06-cv-00022, 2021 WL 5510211 at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 24, 2021). Plaintiff has presented no reason for the Court to deviate from this conclusion, especially in light of the fact that when this case was active, it only involved questions of Nevada and not California law. Therefore, while the Court takes note of California's amendment to its Safe at Home Program, this amendment does not alter the Court's analysis….

Next, Plaintiff argues this Court erred because other federal courts have allowed Plaintiff to either seal actions brought by him or allow him to proceed pseudonymously. Plaintiff is correct that other courts have granted the exact relief he now seeks. However, Plaintiff's Motion either accidently or intentionally omits that other courts have employed the same analysis as this Court in rejecting his arguments. See Del Nero v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-04823, 2021 WL 2375892, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 20, 2021); Del Nero v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 00-cv-9068, 2021 WL 3285033, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2021); Doe v. Law Offices of Winn and Sims, No. 06-cv-00599, 2021 WL 9917688, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2021); Chaker-Delnero, 2023 WL 2861254, at *2. Again, while the Court considers the reasoning of the orders included by Plaintiff, these decisions do not alter the Court's analysis, especially when considering the underlying argument advanced by Plaintiff remains the same….

Finally, Plaintiff argues he is "under new threats [of danger] as a result of bringing to the attention of authorities Las Vegas attorney [that] Thomas Michaelides forged a court order" in a lawsuit against Plaintiff in state court.

Here, it is unclear to the Court how sealing the docket or the use of a pseudonym would shield Plaintiff from further harassment or harm…. "There is no evidence that Defendants have attempted to retaliate against her because of this lawsuit, but even if they did, 'the retaliation would not be prevented by allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously at this point." … Plaintiff's former attorney clearly knows who he is, and his harassment has nothing to do with his involvement in this case. Del Nero v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-04823, 2021 WL 2375892, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 20, 2021). Replacing Plaintiff's name with a pseudonym "cannot change" the fact that individuals who allegedly wish him harm know his phone number and former address. What the Court can do, and it did do, is redact the personal information that accompany Plaintiff's filings to otherwise protect his current location….