Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 16, 2022

Doe v. The Crime Report

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-09520
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jane Doe v. The Center on Media, Crime and Justice, Judge Abrams ordered Doe to explain why she should remain anonymous.

Who this affects

Jane Doe, whose request to proceed under a pseudonym had not yet been decided, must explain by November 29, 2022 why she should be allowed to remain anonymous.

What happened

In Jane Doe v. The Center on Media, Crime and Justice, Jane Doe filed the action on November 8, 2022, and sought to proceed under a pseudonym. She had not filed a motion asking the court to approve her anonymity.

The court directed Doe to explain why she should be allowed to remain anonymous. It identified the standard from a Second Circuit decision and referred to a decision discussing factors courts consider when deciding whether a person may remain anonymous in a public lawsuit.

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered Doe to provide that explanation by November 29, 2022. The order did not decide whether she would be allowed to remain anonymous.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Doe v. The Crime Report · No. 1:22-cv-09520
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Nov. 16, 2022

Background

Jane Doe filed the action on November 8, 2022. She sought to proceed under a pseudonym, meaning that her real name would not appear publicly, but she had not filed a motion requesting permission to do so.

Court’s directive

The court ordered Doe to provide, no later than November 29, 2022, the reasons why the court should allow her to remain anonymous. The court directed her to address the standard stated in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008), and cited Doe v. Weinstein, 484 F. Supp. 3d 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), for its discussion of ten factors used to evaluate requests for anonymity in public proceedings.

Ruling

Judge Ronnie Abrams issued an order requiring Doe to submit that explanation. The order did not grant or deny permission to proceed anonymously and did not resolve the underlying action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.