Be v. Comcast Corporation

Background

Su Be filed the complaint using an abbreviation of her name rather than her full name. The court ordered her to explain why she should be allowed to proceed that way and invited Comcast Corporation and Magellan Health Services, Inc. to respond. No defendant opposed the request.

Legal standard

The court applied the Second Circuit’s standard for deciding whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously. That standard requires balancing the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity against the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendants. The court considered ten factors, including the sensitivity of the subject matter, the risk and seriousness of harm from disclosure, the plaintiff’s vulnerability, whether the defendants are private parties or government entities, possible prejudice to the defendants, whether the identity has remained confidential, the public interest in knowing the parties, and other ways to protect confidentiality.

Court’s analysis

The court found that factors one, three, four, five, six, seven, and ten favored Su Be. The case involves highly sensitive and personal matters concerning her daughter’s mental health, including alleged thoughts of suicide. The court accepted Su Be’s argument that disclosure of her name could worsen her daughter’s alleged medical conditions. Although Su Be is not a minor, the court considered her minor daughter’s health central to the case. The court also found little or no apparent prejudice to the defendants because no defendant opposed the request, noted that Su Be’s identity had remained confidential, and found no known alternative mechanism that would adequately protect her identity.

The court found that factors two, eight, and nine weighed slightly against anonymity. Su Be acknowledged that identifying her daughter appeared unlikely to create a risk of retaliatory harm. The court also recognized the public’s interest in knowing who uses the courts and observed that factual disputes could arise even though the case appeared at its core to involve a legal issue. The court nevertheless concluded that these considerations did not outweigh the factors supporting anonymity.

The court further reasoned that protecting the daughter’s identity would be undermined if the parent had to use her full name while litigating on the daughter’s behalf. It noted that the Second Circuit had approved pseudonyms in similar circumstances.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan ruled that Su Be had rebutted the presumption that she must proceed under her own name. The court held that she may proceed using the abbreviation “Su Be” and that her daughter may be referred to as “So Be.”