Doe v. Zeumer
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-10226
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Doe v. Zeumer, Judge Torres granted Doe’s request to litigate under a pseudonym because the privacy risks favored anonymity.
Jane Doe may litigate under a pseudonym at this stage, while Thomas Zeumer must conduct discovery under the procedures agreed by the parties; the court may revisit anonymity later.
What happened
In Doe v. Zeumer, Jane Doe asked to use a pseudonym in a lawsuit alleging that Thomas Zeumer sexually assaulted her in 1991. Zeumer knew Doe’s identity and did not oppose her request.
The court found that revealing Doe’s identity could cause serious mental-health harm and could affect her acting career. It also noted that the parties had agreed on discovery procedures that would not greatly prejudice Zeumer. Although the public’s interest in disclosure and the fact that the case involved private parties weighed against anonymity, the court found that the factors overall favored protecting Doe’s identity.
Judge Analisa Torres granted Doe’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 26.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Zeumer · No. 1:23-cv-10226
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 6, 2024
Background
Jane Doe asked the court to allow her to litigate under a pseudonym. Her complaint alleges that Thomas Zeumer sexually assaulted her in 1991. The court considered the request under the general rule that court complaints must identify all parties, along with the limited exceptions allowing a plaintiff to proceed anonymously.
Court’s Analysis
The court balanced Doe’s interest in anonymity against the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to Zeumer. It considered the ten factors used in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when deciding whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously.
The court found that the allegations involved highly sensitive and personal matters. It also found that disclosure could expose Doe to retaliatory mental harm. Doe had previously spoken publicly about being sexually assaulted by a public figure in the movie industry and said that she had been attacked online and in person, experienced severe anxiety, and had suicidal thoughts. Her psychologist stated that another similar experience could seriously harm her health and mental health. Doe also said that, because she works in the acting industry, disclosure could hurt her ability to obtain acting jobs. The court found that this showing was more than speculation.
The fact that the case involved private parties weighed against anonymity. However, Zeumer did not object, already knew Doe’s identity, and had agreed to procedures that would prevent substantial prejudice to his ability to conduct discovery. The court also found that Doe’s identity had generally remained confidential.
The court recognized that the public generally has an interest in knowing the facts involved in lawsuits and that the allegations were factual rather than purely legal. Those considerations weighed against anonymity. But the court found that no alternative could adequately protect Doe’s confidentiality because once her identity was disclosed, it could not be concealed again.
Ruling
The court concluded that, at this early stage of the litigation, the factors largely favored allowing Doe to proceed under a pseudonym. Judge Analisa Torres granted Doe’s motion to proceed pseudonymously and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 26. The order states that the court may revisit the issue at a later stage of the litigation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.