{"id":2515,"date":"2025-10-29T20:01:15","date_gmt":"2025-10-30T00:01:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2515"},"modified":"2025-10-29T20:01:16","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T00:01:16","slug":"illinois-federal-court-allows-plaintiffs-to-proceed-in-data-breach-class-action-anonymously","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/10\/29\/illinois-federal-court-allows-plaintiffs-to-proceed-in-data-breach-class-action-anonymously\/","title":{"rendered":"Illinois Federal Court Allows Plaintiffs To Proceed In Data Breach Class Action Anonymously"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Brett Bohan, and Andrew Quay<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong> On October 22, 2025, in Doe, et al. v. Veradigm Inc., No. 25-CV-10147, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2025), Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted<\/a> plaintiffs\u2019 motion to proceed under a pseudonym in a class action alleging violations of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and negligence for improper disclosure of plaintiffs\u2019 protected health information (\u201cPHI\u201d).\u00a0 The Court held that the potential harm to the plaintiffs in revealing their identities exceeded the likely harm from concealment because revealing their identities would exacerbate the very harm plaintiffs sought to remedy.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision illustrates the delicate balancing that courts apply when deciding whether to allow plaintiffs to proceed anonymously, particularly when faced with allegations of improper disclosure of highly sensitive personal information including test results, doctor\u2019s notes, and medical treatment information.  When plaintiffs\u2019 reasons for proceeding anonymously implicate the same reasons they brought the lawsuit, like in Veradigm, the scales are demonstrably tipped in favor of proceeding under a pseudonym.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In August 2025, plaintiffs, proceeding under the pseudonyms \u201cJane Doe,\u201d \u201cJanet Doe,\u201d and \u201cJohn Doe,\u201d filed a class action lawsuit against Veradigm alleging improper disclosure of their PHI to Google via Google\u2019s online marketing systems.  Id. <\/em>at *1.  Plaintiffs contended that the disclosure would make them particularly vulnerable if their true names were revealed, as the publication of their names together with improperly released PHI would make them a \u201cprime target\u201d for identity theft, fraud and financial loss, stigma, and similar threats.  Id. <\/em>at *2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs\u2019 initial motion to proceed under a pseudonym was denied without prejudice for failing to address recent Seventh Circuit precedent, Doe v. Loyola Univ. Chicago<\/em>, 100 F.4th 910 (7th Cir. 2024), and Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis.<\/em>, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997).  Id <\/em>at *1.  In Loyola<\/em>, the expelled plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously where he was accused of engaging in non-consensual sexual activity with another student.  100 F.4th at 912.  In Blue Cross<\/em>, the plaintiff requested anonymity out of fear that the litigation might result in the disclosure of his psychiatric records.  112 F.3d at 872.  The Seventh Circuit indicated that it was inappropriate to allow the plaintiffs to proceed under fictitious names.  See id.<\/em>; Loyola<\/em>, 100 F.4th at 914.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In their renewed motion in the case at hand, plaintiffs argued that Loyola <\/em>and Blue Cross<\/em> could be distinguished because, rather than concealing embarrassing information flowing from their own conduct, plaintiffs seek to prevent additional intrusions into their own private affairs.  Veradigm<\/em>, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942at *2.  Plaintiffs agreed to reveal their true identities to Veradigm pursuant to a protective order to allow Veradigm to investigate their claims.  Id. <\/em>at *4-5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court agreed that the sensitive information in Loyola<\/em> and Blue Cross <\/em>was \u201ctangential\u201d to the respective Title IX and ERISA claims, whereas in the case at bar \u201cthe injury litigated against is the same interest Plaintiffs seek to protect through pseudonyms: disclosure of Plaintiffs\u2019 PHI.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *4.  Furthermore, there could be no prejudice to Veradigm where the plaintiffs agreed to reveal their true identities under a protective order to allow Veradigm to investigate their claims.  Id. <\/em>at *4-5.  Therefore, although the use of fictitious names is generally disfavored in federal court, the harm to plaintiffs in revealing their identities exceeded the likely harm from concealment, and the Court granted plaintiffs\u2019 motion to proceed under a pseudonym.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An analogous decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig.<\/em>, No. 22-CV-03580, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45310 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2025), guided the opinion.  There, as in Veradigm<\/em>, the court considered whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed under pseudonyms where data privacy was at issue.  Id. <\/em>at *12.  It held that they should, reasoning that requiring the plaintiffs to proceed publicly would \u201carguably cause a further and greater privacy intrusion\u201d and disclosure may dissuade plaintiffs from bringing privacy cases.  Id<\/em>.  The court in Veradigm <\/em>adopted this reasoning when granting plaintiffs\u2019 motion for permission to proceed under a pseudonym.  Veradigm<\/em>, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942 <\/em>at *4-5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications for Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Veradigm <\/em>illustrates that, where the privacy of an individual is at issue in a lawsuit, courts may be more inclined to permit plaintiffs to proceed anonymously to avoid intruding further on their privacy.\u00a0

Individuals who know that they may be able to avoid disclosing their identities during litigation may feel emboldened to pursue a data privacy lawsuit that they may not have otherwise.\u00a0

Therefore, companies should be aware of the risk of additional litigation as the result of plaintiffs being permitted to litigate under pseudonyms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Brett Bohan, and Andrew Quay Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 22, 2025, in Doe, et al. v. Veradigm Inc., No. 25-CV-10147, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2025), Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiffs\u2019 motion to … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Illinois Federal Court Allows Plaintiffs To Proceed In Data Breach Class Action Anonymously”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[91],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,140,147],"class_list":["post-2515","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-data-breach-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":140,"user_id":719,"is_guest":0,"slug":"bbohan","display_name":"Brett Bohan","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/04\/bohanbrett-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":147,"user_id":742,"is_guest":0,"slug":"aquay","display_name":"Andrew P. Quay","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/03\/quayandrew-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2515","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2515"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2515\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2515"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}