review the district court’s order denying plaintiff anonymity pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. To be appealable under the collateral order doctrine, a district court decision “must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978); see also Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). We are satisfied that the district court’s denial of plaintiffs motion to proceed under a pseudonym meets all three of these requirements. See Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 237-38 (4th
holding that the issue of whether the attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine holding that order dismissing action for failure to include plaintiffs names but giving leave to amend complaint is immediately appealable under collateral order doctrine holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a trustees claim to immunity was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine