Jane Doe v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Jane Doe, proceeding without a lawyer under a pseudonym, sued the New York City Department of Education, Linda Chen, Kimberly Wittmer, Lucious Young, and Nora Lovett. She asserted employment-discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. She alleged that she was psychologically disabled and had worked for the Department of Education since 2012.

The pending matters included two requests to proceed under a pseudonym, two filings seeking default judgment or related relief, Defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference concerning a possible motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff’s letter requesting a ruling that Defendants violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Defendants had appeared and received an extension of time to respond, but responded three days after the extended deadline. The Clerk did not enter a certificate of default.

Pseudonym and Sealing Requests

The court denied both requests to proceed under a pseudonym. Rule 10(a) generally requires a complaint to name all parties, subject to limited exceptions. The court applied the factors used to balance a plaintiff’s interest in anonymity against the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to defendants.

The court found that nearly all of the factors weighed against anonymity. It concluded that the employment-discrimination claims were not highly sensitive or personal, that Plaintiff’s concerns about retaliation and future employment harm were speculative or would not be prevented because Defendants already knew her identity, and that Plaintiff was an adult. The court also found a public interest in the facts and parties involved in the case. Only the factor concerning whether Plaintiff had kept her identity confidential weighed in favor of anonymity, and the court found that factor was not decisive.

The court also denied Plaintiff’s alternative request to proceed with the case under seal because of the presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible. The court stated that narrower measures, such as appropriate redactions or sealed submissions, could protect privacy. The court directed Plaintiff to file the complaint in her own name on or before August 29, 2023.

Default Judgment

The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and her motion titled “motion to deny defendants [sic] request to set aside motion for default judgment,” which the court treated as an amended motion for default judgment. A default judgment generally requires the Clerk first to enter the opposing party’s default. Because the Clerk had not entered a certificate of default, the court stated that default judgment could not issue.

The court also explained that Defendants had responded, although late, and that Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay. Defendants’ pre-motion letter identified potentially meritorious defenses. For those reasons, the court denied both default-related motions.

Rule 5 Request and Pre-Motion Conference

The court denied Plaintiff’s request for a determination that Defendants violated Rule 5, which addresses when and how certain papers must be served. The court noted that Plaintiff’s mailing address was not available on the docket or provided to Defendants, and that the summonses were returnable only to “Jane Doe.” If Plaintiff continued litigating under her real name, the court directed her to file a notice of appearance containing her mailing address.

The court denied Defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference, with leave to renew after Plaintiff filed the complaint in her own name. The court directed the Clerk to terminate docket entries 18, 20, 24, 27, and 33 and to mail the order to Plaintiff at the address of record.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Plaintiff’s motion and amended motion to proceed under a pseudonym, denied the alternative request to proceed under seal, denied both default-related motions, denied Plaintiff’s Rule 5 request, and denied Defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference with leave to renew after Plaintiff filed the complaint in her own name.