John Doe v. Cook
1:23-cv-10362
S.D.N.Y.May 19, 2025Background
- Plaintiff John Doe sought permission to proceed pseudonymously in a lawsuit against Defendant Lindsay Cook in the Southern District of New York.
- The Court had previously denied Doe's request for anonymity, applying the Second Circuit's Sealed Plaintiff factors.
- Doe moved for reconsideration of that decision, citing risks of retaliatory harm and the involvement of a government actor in a related investigation.
- Doe referenced a recent Fourth Circuit case, Doe v. Sidar, as allegedly controlling authority supporting pseudonymous litigation.
- Both Plaintiff and Defendant are representing themselves (pro se), and both parties were aware of each other's identities from the outset.
- Doe presented further argument and exhibits on reconsideration but did not show new evidence or legal changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconsideration Standard | Grounds exist due to new evidence, overlooked matters, and alleged manifest injustice. | No new law or overlooked evidence presented. | Reconsideration denied; no clear error or new controlling law or facts shown. |
| Proceeding Pseudonymously (Anonymity) | Risks of harm and privacy justify anonymity; Sidar is on point. | Plaintiff's identity already known; transparency needed. | Anonymity denied; Sealed Plaintiff factors do not favor Doe under Second Circuit law. |
| Applicability of Doe v. Sidar (Fourth Circuit) | Sidar should control or change result; facts allegedly similar. | Sidar is out-of-circuit, not binding. | Sidar not controlling; facts distinguishable; Second Circuit law governs. |
| Role of Government Actor (ADA Involvement) | Gov't involvement increases anonymity need (Sealed Plaintiff factor 5). | Suit is private, not against government. | Govt. actor not a party; privacy not heightened; public's right to know prevails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (sets standard for reconsideration motions)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (establishes factors for granting pseudonymity in federal litigation)
- Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (reconsideration is not for relitigating decided issues)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (reconsideration requires overlooked controlling data/decisions)