Doe v. The Mount Sinai Hospital
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-06171
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jane Doe v. The Mount Sinai Hospital, Judge Oetken denied Doe’s request to use initials and ordered her to file an amended complaint using her real name.
Jane Doe must file an amended complaint using her real name within seven days; the order does not state any additional effect on The Mount Sinai Hospital.
What happened
Jane Doe v. The Mount Sinai Hospital concerns Plaintiff Jane Doe’s request to proceed using her initials because of the sensitive nature of the allegations in her case.
The court said that using initials is essentially proceeding under a false name. It noted that it had already denied Jane Doe’s request to proceed anonymously and that her new letter did not provide additional facts overcoming the strong presumption that court proceedings are public.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the request and ordered Jane Doe to file an amended complaint using her real name within seven days. The court said it would consider her other motions later.
The detailed version
- Doe v. The Mount Sinai Hospital · No. 1:25-cv-06171
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 30, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Jane Doe asked the court for permission to use her initials in the case, citing the “exceptionally sensitive nature” of the allegations she would need to prove. The court had previously denied her request to proceed under a pseudonym, meaning a name other than her real name.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that proceeding under initials is effectively the same as proceeding pseudonymously. It explained that court litigation is generally a public process and that there is a strong presumption of public access. The court found that Jane Doe’s letter did not allege additional facts sufficient to overcome that presumption.
Ruling and Effect
The court denied Jane Doe’s request to proceed using her initials. It ordered her to file an amended complaint using her real name within seven days of the order. The court stated that it would consider her other motions in due course. The order did not decide the underlying claims against The Mount Sinai Hospital.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.