Bank v. New York State Department of Health

Background

John Doe filed the complaint on June 23, 2020, naming himself as “John Doe.” The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires a complaint’s title to name all parties. Courts may allow a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym when the circumstances justify withholding the person’s identity, including when disclosure could create a risk of physical or mental harm.

The court referred to the Second Circuit’s multi-factor framework for deciding whether a party may proceed anonymously. The factors include the sensitivity and personal nature of the dispute, possible prejudice to the defendants, whether the plaintiff’s identity has remained confidential, and whether the public interest favors disclosure.

Order

The court said it did not have enough information at this stage to decide whether Doe should be permitted to proceed pseudonymously. The court also noted that Doe had not requested permission to do so.

The court ordered Doe to show cause—meaning to provide reasons—by July 1, 2020, why he should be allowed to proceed pseudonymously. If the defendants opposed the request, their opposition was due one week after service of Doe’s response. Doe’s reply, if any, was due three days after service of the opposition. The court directed Doe’s counsel to serve the order on the defendants and keep proof of service.

Disposition and Classification

The order directed a response and set deadlines; it did not grant or deny permission to proceed anonymously and did not reach the merits of the underlying case. Judge Gregory H. Woods therefore entered a procedural order concerning party identification and court procedure.