310 F.R.D. 222
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff Jane Doe filed claims against Delta Airlines for battery, defamation, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and negligence arising from a flight delay incident and subsequent arrest for public intoxication.
- Doe sought to proceed pseudonymously in the complaint filed September 6, 2018; the court granted ex parte leave to file under a pseudonym.
- Delta moved or opposed pseudonymity, emphasizing public interest in disclosure and potential jury prejudice.
- The court previously granted Delta summary judgment on all but the battery claim and directed Doe to state whether she would proceed pseudonymously at trial.
- The court ultimately denied pseudonymity at trial, requiring Doe to amend her complaint with her real name by a fixed deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe may proceed pseudonymously at trial | Doe argues anonymity protects reputation and finances without public interest | Delta argues public interest and jury credibility require disclosure | Denied; Doe must proceed with name disclosed at trial |
| How the anonymity balancing factors apply in this case | Doe asserts factors favor anonymity due to sensitive personal nature and lack of public effect | Delta asserts potential prejudice to defense and need for accountability | Factors weigh toward disclosure in a trial setting, given credibility and public interest concerns |
| Whether the court should grant a delay to decide on continuing the remaining claim if anonymity denied | Doe requested 72 hours to decide on continuing the battery claim | N/A | Granted; Doe must amend complaint naming her by a set deadline |
| Whether Doe must amend the complaint to reveal her name by a deadline | N/A | N/A | Ordered to amend by October 7, 2015, 5 p.m., with no change to the remaining claims otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (public access to judicial proceedings; anonymity allowed only in limited exceptions)
- Doe v. Del Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (balancing anonymity: public interest vs. privacy; not automatically privileged)
- Shakur v. Doe, 164 F.R.D. 359 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (central inquiry balancing anonymity against public interest and prejudice to defendant)
- Doe v. City of New York, 201 F.R.D. 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (attorney-plaintiff reputational harm; rejected anonymity after considering broader public interest)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (public trials promote open fact-finding and accountability)