HARRIS VS. FRESENIUS VASCULAR CARE, INC.

# Case Name Tentative

1. HARRIS VS. FRESENIUS VASCULAR CARE, INC. 2023-01363455 1. MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE 2. MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE 3. MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE The applications of Hannah F. Preston, Megan Heinsz, and James F. Bennett to appear pro hac vice as counsel for defendants Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc., Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. dba Fresenius Medical Care North America, Fresenius Vascular Care Tustin MSO, LLC and Paul Toomey in this matter are hereby GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to the applications lack merit for the reasons stated in Defendants’ reply. Plaintiff repeatedly mentions the applicants’ purported admissions in California over the past decade, without identifying those admissions. However, Rule 9.40 is only concerned with prior admissions within the past two years. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 940(d)(5).) During that time frame, the applicants were admitted pro hac vice no more than three other times.

The applicants have each satisfied all the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

2. DOE VS. IHERB, LLC. 2025-01505285 1. MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants iHerb, LLC and Trent Kruse’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Jane Doe Designation is DENIED as MOOT.

Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s Jane Doe Designation with respect to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC).

On 6/26/26, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ROA 71.) Thus, to the extent Defendants’ motion refers to the designation in the FAC it is moot.

2. MOTION ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO USE PSEUDONYM

Plaintiff alleges she was may have been the victim of a sexual assault by her employer’s Senior Vice President during a work event. (SAC ¶¶ 20-32.) Plaintiff moves to proceed pseudonymously in this action as “Jane Doe.”

The right to access court proceedings necessarily includes the right to know the identity of the parties. (Dept. of Fair Emp. and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 111 [citation omitted].) “Because of the inherently sensitive nature of some proceedings, statutes specifically allow for