Richard Roe v. New York State Board of Law Examiners
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-10298
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Richard Roe v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, Judge Cronan allowed pseudonymous litigation and temporarily sealed anticipated preliminary-relief filings.
Richard Roe may proceed under that pseudonym and may temporarily file his anticipated motion for preliminary relief and supporting documents under seal. The New York State Board of Law Examiners will receive the order and may later seek reconsideration of the pseudonym ruling.
What happened
Richard Roe sued the New York State Board of Law Examiners over its refusal to give him extra time on the New York Law Examination and Uniform Bar Examination. He asked to use a pseudonym and to temporarily file an expected request for urgent court relief under seal.
The court said privacy concerns involving Roe’s mental-health issues and personal background supported keeping his identity confidential. It also found that the Board would not be harmed by shielding his identity from the public, and that the public’s interest in the bar-admission process did not require knowing who Roe was.
Judge Cronan granted both requests. Roe may proceed as “Richard Roe,” although the court may reconsider that decision if the Board later gives additional reasons. Roe may temporarily file his expected request for preliminary relief and supporting documents under seal, but those materials must eventually be made public with only justified redactions.
The detailed version
- Richard Roe v. New York State Board of Law Examiners · No. 1:22-cv-10298
- John Cronan
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
Richard Roe’s complaint concerns the New York State Board of Law Examiners’ refusal to grant him extra time on the New York Law Examination and the Uniform Bar Examination. Before the Board appeared in the case, Roe asked for two forms of privacy protection: permission to proceed under the pseudonym “Richard Roe,” and permission to file an anticipated motion for preliminary relief and supporting materials temporarily under seal.
Pseudonym request
The court applied the Second Circuit’s non-exhaustive list of factors for deciding whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously. The court said that many factors favored protecting Roe’s identity. According to the allegations, the case could involve sensitive personal matters concerning mental-health issues that Roe claimed entitled him to extra examination time. Roe also alleged that his personal background as an Arab-American and Muslim contributed to his lack of a traditional attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis. The court said this background could make him particularly vulnerable to disclosure-related harm.
The court also noted that Roe was challenging government action, that his identity had remained confidential, and that the Board already knew his identity because Roe had repeatedly asked it for extra examination time. The court found that the Board would not suffer prejudice from keeping Roe’s identity shielded from the public, at least initially. Although the public has a legitimate interest in the fairness of the Board’s lawyer-admission procedures, the court concluded that knowing Roe’s particular identity would not further that interest.
The court acknowledged that some factors did not necessarily favor anonymity. It found that disclosure was unlikely to cause retaliatory harm or the injury being litigated. But it said those considerations did not eliminate Roe’s genuine privacy interest concerning his mental-health diagnosis. Based on the submissions before it, the court permitted Roe to proceed as “Richard Roe.” Because the Board had not yet appeared, the court said it could revisit the decision if the Board presented reasons that had not been considered.
Temporary sealing
The court also granted Roe permission to file his anticipated motion for preliminary relief and supporting documents under seal. The permission was temporary, not permanent. The court accepted Roe’s explanation that the New York Law Examination was scheduled for December 15 and that preparing redactions before that deadline would be impractical.
The court stated that the documents would be filed publicly later. At that time, they would be redacted only to the extent either party requested and justified redactions under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and other relevant authorities. The court cautioned that it could not guarantee that every portion Roe wanted redacted would remain sealed.
Disposition
The court granted leave for Roe to proceed pseudonymously and granted leave to temporarily file his anticipated motion for preliminary relief under seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail copies of the order to the New York State Attorney General and the New York State Board of Law Examiners. The order did not decide whether Roe was entitled to extra examination time or whether his anticipated request for preliminary relief should be granted.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.