Be v. Comcast Corporation
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-08571
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Be v. Comcast Corporation, Judge Cronan ordered Su Be to justify using a pseudonym and allowed defendants to respond.
Su Be and the defendants, Comcast Corporation and Magellan Health Services, Inc.; the order also concerned the privacy interests of Su Be’s minor child, So Be.
What happened
In Be v. Comcast Corporation, Su Be was using what the court understood to be an abbreviation of her name instead of her name in the complaint. The court noted that federal rules require the complaint’s title to name all parties and that using a pseudonym is generally an exception.
The court ordered Su Be to file, by February 2, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages explaining why the presumption of public disclosure should not apply. The letter also had to address relevant legal authorities and explain why using a pseudonym for Su Be’s minor child would not adequately protect the child’s privacy.
Judge John P. Cronan allowed either defendant to file a response of no more than five pages by February 9, 2021. The order did not decide whether Su Be could proceed under a pseudonym.
The detailed version
- Be v. Comcast Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-08571
- John Cronan
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
Su Be’s complaint used what the court understood to be an abbreviation of her name as a pseudonym. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), which says that a complaint’s title must name all parties. It also explained that a plaintiff is generally presumed to proceed under the plaintiff’s own name. A request to use a pseudonym requires balancing the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity against the public interest in disclosure and possible prejudice to the defendants.
Order
The court ordered Su Be to file a letter by February 2, 2021, explaining why the presumption of disclosure should be overcome. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to address the legal factors and authorities identified by the court. Su Be also had to explain why referring to the minor child, So Be, by a pseudonym would not sufficiently protect the child’s privacy interests.
The court allowed either defendant to file a response of no more than five pages by February 9, 2021.
What the Order Did Not Decide
Judge John P. Cronan did not determine in this order whether Su Be could continue using a pseudonym. The order required additional briefing before that issue would be resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.