Jane Doe v. John Doe and John Doe Corp., 1:16-cv-02050

Plaintiff filed a civil action in S.D.N.Y.; the case proceeded publicly for over a year and included defendants' counterclaims.
The parties jointly moved to retroactively assign pseudonyms to all parties on the docket and in all publicly available filings after settlement.
Parties asserted economic harm and embarrassment from the public allegations as reasons for anonymity.
Neither party alleged vulnerability or risk of physical retaliation; there was no finding of fault because the case settled.
The Court considered the public’s interest in open proceedings and the precedent requiring balancing of anonymity against disclosure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parties may proceed under pseudonyms retroactively for all filings	Joint request: economic/reputational harm and embarrassment justify sealing identities	Agreed to joint request; no contention of physical harm or vulnerability	Denied for full retroactive anonymity; allowed limited caption masking because parties jointly requested and case settled without fault
Whether embarrassment/economic harm alone supports anonymity	Embarrassment and alleged economic harm warrant sealing	Opposing party had litigated publicly without pseudonyms; public interest weighs against sealing	Court: embarrassment/reputational harm insufficient to justify retroactive sealing
Whether the public’s right to access outweighs privacy here	Privacy interests reduced after settlement; seek to minimize publicity	Public interest in disclosure; lawsuits are public events	Court balanced interests and ordered limited sealing of caption only
Scope of relief (caption-only vs. all documents)	Requested full retroactive pseudonymity for all docketed filings	Not disputed by parties but court considered precedent and burden	Court ordered caption to show Jane Doe and John Doe Corp./John Doe; denied retroactive redaction of prior filings

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (sets balancing test for pseudonymous litigation and emphasizes public’s right to know who uses the courts)
M.M. v. Zavaras, 139 F.3d 798 (10th Cir. 1998) (embarrassment or reputational harm alone does not justify anonymity)