Doe v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-00069
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jane Doe v. First UNUM, Judge Rochon ordered Doe to renew her request to sue anonymously or refile the complaint without a pseudonym.
Jane Doe, First UNUM Life Insurance Company, Provident Life and Casualty Insurance Company, and the public’s access to the court’s proceedings.
What happened
Jane Doe sued First UNUM Life Insurance Company and Provident Life and Casualty Insurance Company. She initially filed the case under the pseudonym “Jane Doe” under a temporary partial sealing order.
The earlier order allowed the pseudonym for ten days or until further court action. The case was later unsealed, the defendants were served, and defense counsel appeared. The court then considered whether Jane Doe could continue using a pseudonym.
Judge Rochon ordered Jane Doe to file a renewed motion to proceed anonymously, with a proposed order, by April 2, 2025. The defendants could respond by April 16, and Doe could reply by April 23. If Doe did not timely file the motion, the court said it would order the complaint refiled without a pseudonym.
The detailed version
- Doe v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company · No. 1:25-cv-00069
- Rochon
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
Jane Doe commenced this action on January 3, 2025. The complaint was filed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe” pursuant to a partial sealing order entered in a related miscellaneous proceeding. That order permitted Doe to proceed under a pseudonym for ten days from the order’s date or until further order of the court, and left it to the assigned district judge to decide whether continued anonymity and sealing were appropriate.
The action was later unsealed. The defendants were served, and defense counsel appeared on February 25, 2025. The court explained that the use of pseudonyms generally conflicts with the public’s common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, although limited exceptions may allow a plaintiff to proceed anonymously.
Order
The court did not decide in this order whether Jane Doe could continue proceeding anonymously. Instead, it ordered her to file a renewed motion to proceed anonymously, including a proposed order, no later than April 2, 2025. The defendants’ response, if any, was due by April 16, 2025, and Doe’s reply, if any, was due by April 23, 2025. The court stated that if Doe failed to timely file the motion, it would order the complaint refiled without a pseudonym.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.