Doe v. City University of New York

Background

John Doe, identified in the opinion as a full-time freshman at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, sued the City University of New York, several John Jay College officials, and unidentified defendants. He asserted constitutional and New York State law claims arising from CUNY’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The policy required students attending fully in-person or hybrid classes to be vaccinated unless they received a medical exemption or religious exception.

Doe requested a religious exception because he objected, based on his Christian beliefs, to vaccines produced or tested using human fetal cell lines derived from voluntary abortion. His request was denied. He was later barred from attending John Jay College classes in person. The opinion addresses only his request to proceed under the pseudonym “John Doe,” not the validity of the vaccination policy or the denial of his religious-exception request.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires a complaint to identify all parties. Courts may allow a plaintiff to use a pseudonym when the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity outweighs the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendants. The court applied the balancing factors identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including the sensitivity of the case, the risk and severity of harm from disclosure, the plaintiff’s age, possible prejudice to defendants, the public’s interest in knowing the parties’ identities, and alternative ways to protect confidential information.

Court’s analysis

The court acknowledged that Doe’s religious beliefs and vaccination-related circumstances were personal and sensitive. But it concluded that the medical aspect of the case did not independently justify anonymity and that Doe had identified his religion only as Christian. The court also found that he had not shown a particular harm based on his religion that differed from the harm he might claim if he had refused vaccination for other reasons.

The court found Doe’s asserted risk of “shaming and blaming,” harassment, ostracism, emotional harm, or violence too general and speculative. He provided no evidence of a specific injury, its likely severity, or its likelihood, including no supporting evidence from medical professionals. Although Doe had been 17 when some events occurred, he was an adult when he filed the lawsuit, so the court found that his age did not support anonymity.

The court further determined that suing a government entity did not by itself favor anonymity, particularly because Doe alleged that the individual defendants were sued in both their official and individual capacities. It found that keeping Doe’s identity from the public could make discovery more difficult, including discovery involving third-party witnesses. The court said it was unclear how widely his vaccination status was known, but emphasized that vaccination status is not inherently confidential. It also found a strong public interest in open judicial proceedings and in knowing the identities of the parties, especially because the case involved factual questions about Doe’s conduct as well as legal questions.

Finally, the court noted that confidentiality could be protected through narrower measures, such as redacting documents, sealing materials, obtaining a protective order, or entering a confidentiality agreement.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald concluded that Doe had not shown that his interest in anonymity outweighed the defendants’ interests and the presumption that judicial proceedings are open to the public. The court denied Doe’s motion to proceed anonymously. The opinion did not resolve his underlying constitutional or New York State law claims.