Anonymous v. Anonymous

Background

The self-represented petitioner filed the case as a request to seal mental-health information. The petitioner relied on the Violence Against Women Act, a New York mental-health statute, and other state law. The petitioner asked the court to use the caption “Anonymous v. Anonymous, et al.” and seal all filings. The petitioner also separately sought temporary sealing of the petitioner’s medical record while the request for a permanent sealing order was pending.

The petitioner alleged being a veteran who received mental-health treatment from several New York City hospitals. According to the petition, the treatment related to a violent sexual assault, alleged retaliation, and psychological harm. The petitioner also alleged involuntary hospitalization for two weeks and continued outpatient counseling. The petitioner said that medical records containing mental-health and identifying information about participants in group counseling were being accessed without consent by third parties.

On May 6, 2024, the court temporarily restricted public access to the filings and gave the petitioner deadlines to support the requests for sealing and anonymity. The order addressed only the requests to proceed anonymously and seal the filings; it did not decide the underlying claims about access to medical records.

Legal standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires the title of a complaint to name all parties. Courts in the Second Circuit balance competing interests under a ten-factor test when deciding whether a party may proceed anonymously. The factors include the sensitivity of the subject matter, the risk and seriousness of harm from disclosure, potential prejudice to the opposing party, whether the identity has remained confidential, the public interest in knowing the parties’ identities, and whether less restrictive ways exist to protect confidentiality.

Court filings are generally presumed to be open to the public. For documents that are relevant to the court’s decision, the court must weigh the public-access presumption and determine whether specific circumstances justify sealing. Sealing must be essential to protect an important interest and narrowly tailored to that interest. Pleadings and filings asking the court to decide a motion receive substantial or heavy public-access protection.

Analysis

The court concluded that the first three anonymity factors favored the petitioner because the case involved highly sensitive personal matters, including mental-health records and an alleged sexual assault. The court also found evidence of substantial potential harm from disclosure. The petitioner said that access to the medical record caused fear and jeopardized safety, and the petition included documentation concerning involuntary commitment after threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm.

The court also found that the petitioner’s identity had apparently not been made public, that the public’s interest in identifying the petitioner was limited, and that the case appeared to involve primarily legal questions about access to medical records. These considerations supported allowing the petitioner to proceed anonymously.

The court reached a different conclusion about the respondents. The petitioner offered no justification showing how the respondents would be harmed by identification. The respondents had not yet been served or appeared, so they had not stated whether they wanted to proceed anonymously. Although their identities had remained confidential and the public interest in their identities was relatively weak, the court found those considerations insufficient to keep their names secret.

The court also denied the request to seal the entire case. It recognized the petitioner’s interest in avoiding psychological harm from disclosure of mental-health treatment related to a sexual assault, but found that complete sealing was broader than necessary. Redacting the petitioner’s name and identifying information, keeping unredacted filings under seal, and making redacted versions public adequately addressed that interest.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the petitioner’s motion to proceed anonymously. The petitioner may proceed anonymously to the public, but the respondents’ names must appear on publicly available filings.

The court also granted in part and denied in part the petitioner’s motion to seal the case filings. The petitioner may file redacted versions that omit the petitioner’s name and identifying information, while unredacted versions remain under seal. The respondents’ names may not be redacted.

If the petitioner wished to continue, the court ordered the petitioner to file by May 23, 2024, a statement identifying any documents the petitioner wished to withdraw and redacted versions of specified filings. After those filings, the Clerk was asked to add the Department of Veteran Affairs’ Veterans’ Health Administration, the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, NYC Health and Hospitals/Bellevue, and NYU Langone Health as respondents, issue summonses, and make the docket public. If the petitioner did not wish to continue under those conditions, the petitioner was ordered to file a notice of dismissal by May 23, 2024. The order stated that failing to comply could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed.