P.C. v. Driscoll
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-02496
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In P.C. v. Driscoll, Judge Liman allowed the complaint to use a pseudonym and ordered summonses issued while leaving the pseudonym motion pending.
P.C. was allowed at this stage to use a pseudonym in the complaint. The defendants must refer to P.C. as “P.C.” in court filings and pretrial hearings pending further order and must report their position on the pseudonym motion within two weeks after service.
What happened
In P.C. v. Driscoll, P.C. sued medical professionals and related entities over alleged sexual assault during a medical procedure, asserting several state-law claims. P.C. asked to proceed publicly only as “P.C.” and asked the court to require others involved in the case to use that pseudonym.
The court found that the identity-related factors favored allowing the complaint to be filed under a pseudonym at this stage. The court noted that the defendants allegedly already knew P.C.’s identity, the allegations were highly sensitive and personal, and disclosure could worsen the emotional harm P.C. alleged.
Judge Liman allowed the complaint to be filed under the pseudonym and directed the Clerk to issue summonses. He ordered the defendants to refer to P.C. only by that name in court filings and pretrial hearings until further order, and required them to state their position on the pseudonym request within two weeks after being served. The motion itself remained pending.
The detailed version
- P.C. v. Driscoll · No. 1:24-cv-02496
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
P.C. filed claims for medical malpractice, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, responsibility for employees’ conduct, negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. P.C. filed the complaint under a pseudonym and moved for an order allowing continued use of that pseudonym by the parties, witnesses, lawyers, and related participants.
Court’s analysis
The court said the limited issues at this stage were whether P.C. could file the complaint under a pseudonym and whether the Clerk could issue summonses. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires the complaint’s title to name all parties. The court also cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b), which requires the Clerk to issue a properly completed summons. Applying the Second Circuit’s factors for deciding whether the interest in anonymity outweighs the public interest in disclosure and possible prejudice to defendants, the court considered P.C.’s representations that the defendants already knew P.C.’s identity, that the identity had remained confidential from the public, and that the case involved highly sensitive and personal allegations. P.C. also represented that disclosure could worsen the emotional harm allegedly caused by the events at issue.
Ruling
The court permitted P.C. to file the complaint under the pseudonym and directed the Clerk to issue the requested summonses. Defendants were directed to refer to P.C. only as “P.C.” in all court filings and pretrial hearings pending further order. They were also directed to file their position on the pseudonym motion within two weeks after service of the complaint. The opinion states that the motion remained pending; it does not state that the motion was granted or denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.