Doe v. Institute for Family Health
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-05155
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Doe v. Institute for Family Health, Judge Engelmayer granted Jane Doe’s motion to proceed pseudonymously in the case.
Jane Doe may litigate under a pseudonym, while the defendants must respond to the case without publicly identifying her through the court papers covered by the ruling. The order does not decide the underlying discrimination allegations.
What happened
Jane Doe asked to litigate under a pseudonym because the case involves allegations that she was denied dental treatment because of her HIV status. Her filing said disclosure could cause stigma and emotional harm.
She argued that the defendants already knew her identity and would not be hindered in defending the case if she remained anonymous. She alternatively asked the court to seal the complaint and requested that the limitations period be paused while the motion was pending.
Judge Paul Engelmayer granted the request, ordering that Jane Doe may proceed pseudonymously. The order does not separately state a ruling on the alternative request to seal the complaint.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Institute for Family Health · No. 1:20-cv-05155
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 7, 2020
Background
Jane Doe, represented by Manhattan Legal Services, sought permission to file and litigate the case using the pseudonym “Jane Doe.” The motion concerned a complaint against the Institute for Family Health, Family Health Center of Harlem, Dr. Yu Lin Ngu, and Dr. John Pfail.
The motion alleged that Doe lives with HIV, hypertension, and diabetes and that she was denied emergency dental treatment because of her HIV status. It stated that she sought an emergency tooth extraction at Family Health Center of Harlem on or around August 21, 2017, and that Dr. Ngu refused to treat her after discussing her HIV status. The motion also described several explanations allegedly given for the refusal or referral, including the absence of proper extraction instruments and the absence of an oral surgeon.
Arguments on Anonymity
The motion cited the Second Circuit’s framework for deciding whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously. That framework weighs the plaintiff’s privacy and safety interests against the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendants.
Doe argued that HIV status is highly sensitive and stigmatized and that requiring her to use her legal name could cause further emotional harm and expose her to discrimination. She argued that the defendants already knew her identity and would retain the ability to litigate the case. She also argued that anonymity could reduce the risk that others would be discouraged from bringing discrimination claims involving highly stigmatized characteristics.
As an alternative, Doe asked the court to seal the complaint. She also requested that the court pause the limitations period for her claims while the anonymity motion was pending.
Ruling
The court ordered: “Granted. Plaintiff may proceed pseudonymously in this case.” The order does not expressly state a separate disposition of the alternative request to seal the complaint or the request concerning the limitations period.
The ruling allowed Doe to continue the case under the pseudonym Jane Doe. It was a ruling about the manner in which the case would proceed, not a decision on whether the alleged denial of treatment violated the law.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.