Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 25, 2024

Doe v. Brisam Clinton LLC

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:23-cv-04032
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Doe v. Brisam Clinton LLC, Judge Liman closed a pseudonym motion after orders protected Jane Doe’s identity.

Who this affects

Jane Doe, whose identity and court records were to remain protected under the court’s prior orders; the defendants and other parties were subject to the protective order.

What happened

In Doe v. Brisam Clinton LLC, Jane Doe asked to proceed under a pseudonym and to file her complaint using that name.

The court had previously allowed the complaint to be filed under a pseudonym and summonses to be issued, while allowing the defendants an opportunity to object. The court also later entered a protective order, agreed to by all parties, requiring records to be kept confidential.

Because those orders addressed protection of Jane Doe’s identity, the court directed the Clerk of Court to close the pseudonym motion. Judge Lewis J. Liman did not rule on the underlying claims in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Doe v. Brisam Clinton LLC · No. 1:23-cv-04032
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Mar. 25, 2024

Background

On May 15, 2023, Jane Doe filed a motion asking to proceed under a pseudonym and to file her complaint under a pseudonym. On May 17, 2023, the court permitted the complaint to be filed under a pseudonym and permitted summonses to be issued to the defendants, but reserved judgment on the rest of the motion so that the defendants could object.

The court’s May 17 memorandum and order explained why sealing Jane Doe’s name and identity was appropriate under the factors identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 22, 2023, the court entered a protective order submitted by all parties on consent. That order required records relating to the action to be maintained in a way that protected Jane Doe’s confidentiality.

Ruling

The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 5. The order did not decide the underlying claims or otherwise state that the motion was granted or denied. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order on March 25, 2024.

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.