P.T. v. The Rockefeller University
- 1:21-cv-06740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In P.T. v. The Rockefeller University, the court allowed four plaintiffs to use initials publicly while protecting their identities and preserving the University’s defense rights.
P.T., J.A.T., J.T., and M.V. may use initials publicly, while The Rockefeller University may receive and use their true identities for defense and litigation-related purposes under confidentiality restrictions.
What happened
P.T. v. The Rockefeller University concerns four plaintiffs who alleged that they were sexually abused as children. They filed the lawsuit using initials instead of their legal names and said public disclosure could cause embarrassment, shame, and further distress.
The University did not object to the plaintiffs using initials publicly, as long as it could learn their true identities and fully defend the case. The order requires the plaintiffs’ lawyers to provide identifying information to the University’s lawyers and allows confidential identity disclosures for discovery, experts, insurers, and other litigation-related purposes.
The court ordered that the plaintiffs may continue using initials on the public docket. Judge information is not fully legible in the opinion text. The order also requires redaction of identifying information in public filings and permits either party to ask the court to change the order.
The detailed version
- P.T. v. The Rockefeller University · No. 1:21-cv-06740
- May 18, 2022
Background
P.T., J.A.T., J.T., and M.V. brought this action against The Rockefeller University, also identified in the caption by several former or alternate names. The plaintiffs filed the complaint using initials rather than their legal names. They alleged childhood sexual abuse and stated that public disclosure could expose them to embarrassment, shame, and additional distress in their personal and professional lives.
Anonymity factors
The order relied on the Second Circuit’s ten non-exhaustive factors for deciding whether a plaintiff’s interest in keeping an identity private outweighs the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant. The order identified the allegations as highly sensitive and personal. It also noted that the plaintiffs’ identities had remained confidential, that the University was a private party, and that the University did not object to the plaintiffs proceeding by initials if it retained the ability to conduct discovery and present a full and fair defense. The order further stated that the public could still access the proceedings even though the plaintiffs’ names would not appear publicly.
Order
The court ordered that the plaintiffs may proceed on the public docket using their initials. Within ten days after entry of the order, the plaintiffs’ counsel must provide the University’s counsel with specified identifying information for each plaintiff, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, parents’ or guardians’ names at the time of the alleged abuse, and current and former addresses as specified in the order.
The University may disclose the plaintiffs’ true names to its attorneys, experts, consultants, insurers, discovery participants, witnesses, and people involved in alternative dispute resolution, subject to the order’s confidentiality requirements. Public filings containing identifying information must be redacted, with an unredacted copy provided to the other side’s counsel. Either party may seek to modify or amend the order by motion. The order does not constitute an admission by the University. The judge’s name is not fully legible in the supplied opinion text.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.