A plaintiff who files a California civil complaint as “Jane Doe” cannot assume that the name on the caption will keep their identity confidential. In Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment LLC (Oct. 8, 2026, B347645), the Second District Court of Appeal considered what happened when two plaintiffs used pseudonyms without first asking the court for permission, and the defendants later identified them in a press release.
The decision arose from serious allegations against a record label and individuals associated with it. The plaintiffs filed suit in December 2024 as Jane Doe and Jane Roe, asserting sexual misconduct claims and, in one plaintiff's case, unpaid compensation. Those allegations were not adjudicated in this appeal. After plaintiffs' counsel publicized the case using pseudonyms, Top Dawg Entertainment issued a response identifying the plaintiffs by name and disputing the allegations. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert a doxing claim under Civil Code section 1708.89.
The defendants moved to strike that claim under California's anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The superior court denied the motion. The Court of Appeal reversed and directed the superior court to strike the doxing cause of action.
A pseudonym in the caption does not by itself secure anonymity
The appellate court began with the public's constitutional interest in access to civil proceedings, including the identity of the parties. Absent specific statutory authorization, a civil litigant seeking to proceed anonymously must conditionally file under a pseudonym and promptly request judicial permission. The court must apply the overriding-interest test discussed in Roe v. Smith (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 227 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d). The applicant must establish an overriding interest, a substantial probability of prejudice without anonymity, narrow tailoring, and the absence of a less restrictive alternative.
Here, the plaintiffs had not filed a motion seeking authorization when the press release disclosed their identities. The appellate court acknowledged that the plaintiffs might have presented a strong case for anonymity given the nature of their allegations. But that request needed to be made to the trial court. The court emphasized that its analysis concerned disclosure when no anonymity motion was pending and no court order prohibited disclosure.
Why the doxing claim was struck
The doxing claim arose from the defendants' press release responding to allegations that had already become the subject of public litigation. The Court of Appeal held that the challenged speech fell within the anti-SLAPP statute's protection. At the second stage, the plaintiffs could not establish a probability of prevailing because Civil Code section 47(d), the fair report privilege, protected the accurate identification of the persons who had brought the lawsuit.
The privilege protects fair and true reporting about judicial proceedings, including certain communications to the media. The court focused on the particular statement challenged by the doxing claim: the identification of the actual plaintiffs. Although the press release also characterized the lawsuit in sharply critical terms, those other statements were not the basis of the doxing cause of action before the court. The appellate court did not decide whether the disclosure otherwise satisfied the statutory definition of doxing, or whether the First Amendment independently barred the claim.
Practical considerations before filing or commenting publicly
For a prospective plaintiff with legitimate privacy concerns, the timing of the request for anonymity matters. Counsel should examine any applicable statutory confidentiality protections, prepare the factual showing supporting a pseudonym, and address sealing or protective relief at the outset. Filing under an assumed name without seeking an order leaves a serious gap in protection.
Defendants and their counsel should not read Luna as unrestricted permission to identify litigants publicly. A pending anonymity or sealing motion, an existing protective order, a statute protecting particular information, or materially different statements may change the analysis. Public comments also raise separate questions under professional-conduct rules and the law governing defamation and other claims.
The decision has significance beyond the entertainment industry. Business disputes, shareholder cases, employment claims, and litigation involving sensitive personal or commercial information can generate pressure to make public statements. Before issuing a release about pending litigation, counsel should examine exactly what the record establishes, what orders are in place, and whether the proposed statements fairly describe the proceedings.
The appeal decided only the anti-SLAPP motion concerning the added doxing claim. It did not determine the merits of the underlying sexual misconduct or compensation allegations.
Legal Authorities
- Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment LLC (Oct. 8, 2026, B347645), Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 2, certified for publication — official opinion
- Roe v. Smith (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 227
- Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 — official text
- Civil Code § 47(d) — official text
- Civil Code § 1708.89 — official text
- California Rules of Court, rules 2.550, 2.551
Related practice areas: Civil Litigation · Business and Commercial Litigation