Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 13, 2022

Doe v. Columbia University in the City of New York

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:22-cv-10340
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Doe v. Columbia University, Judge Torres ordered Jane Doe to seek permission to proceed pseudonymously by December 21, 2022.

Who this affects

Jane Doe, who was directed to file an application to proceed under a pseudonym; the order also concerns the case caption listing Columbia University in the City of New York, The New York and Presbyterian Hospital, and John Does 1–100 as defendants.

What happened

In Doe v. Columbia University in the City of New York, Jane Doe sued Columbia University, The New York and Presbyterian Hospital, and unidentified defendants.

The court noted that Jane Doe had not filed a request to use a pseudonym, or a false name, in the case. It directed her to file an application requesting permission to proceed under a pseudonym by December 21, 2022.

Judge Analisa Torres issued this procedural order on December 13, 2022. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Doe v. Columbia University in the City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-10340
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Dec. 13, 2022

Background

Jane Doe brought the action against Columbia University in the City of New York, The New York and Presbyterian Hospital, and John Does 1–100. The opinion states that she filed the action on December 7, 2022.

Issue

The court noted that Jane Doe had not filed a request to proceed pseudonymously, meaning to use a name other than her own in the public case caption. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) and a Second Circuit decision concerning pseudonymous litigation.

Order

The court ordered Jane Doe to file an application to proceed under a pseudonym by December 21, 2022. The order did not address the merits of her claims or otherwise resolve the 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.