Without My Consent

Caselaw

• Doe v. New York University, 786 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004) – Does sued NYU for negligence when they were raped on NYU property, and move to proceed pseudonymously, inter alia. The court announced a rule that “[w]hen a court is deciding whether to allow a plaintiff to proceed anonymously, the ultimate inquiry must be whether ‘the plaintiff has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.’” Id. at 903 (citing Milani, Doe v Roe: An Argument for Defendant Anonymity When a Pseudonymous Plaintiff Alleges a Stigmatizing Intentional Tort, 41 WAYNE L. REV. 1659, 1681 (1995)). Factors to be considered were: “whether plaintiffs' situation is ‘compelling,’ involving ‘highly sensitive matters’ including ‘social stigmatization,’ or ‘where the injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff's identity.’ Further, the fact that plaintiffs' action seeks monetary damages does not affect the plaintiffs' request to proceed pseudonymously, since monetary damages may be the only relief appropriate or available to those claiming ‘psychological suffering’ that has occurred in the past and is not amenable to injunctive or other equitable relief.” Id. (citing to Milani). Here, Plaintiffs “contend that they will be subject to embarrassment, stigma and humiliation,” id., in addition to harms already resulting from the sexual assaults. The court granted the use of pseudonyms.
• Doe v. Kidd, 860 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008) – Doe alleges famous Defendant sexually assaulted and battered her during an altercation where he grabbed her crotch. Doe’s motion to proceed pseudonymously is denied, as she “does not identify any substantial privacy right sufficient to overcome the presumption of openness that attends judicial proceedings in New York” in her claim that she would suffer “unwanted publicity and the exacerbation of the emotional distress.” The court disallows her from proceeding pseudonymously under a state statute allowing pseudonymity where substantial evidence demonstrate an actual sexual offense (such as criminal conviction), and also found that her claims of privacy rights to pseudonymity in that the matter is “highly sensitive” and will cause undue publicity are insufficient to overcome the usual presumption of open courts under the test established by Doe v. New York University.

• Doe v. Merck & Co., Inc., 781 N.Y.S.2d 623 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002) – Libel claims brought by a model who, without her permission, has a fake story about her recurring herpes due to her AIDS published next to her photo. Doe knew the photo would be used for AIDS-related promotional leaflets, but didn’t give permission for the fake “life story” next to her photo. No discussion of pseudonym.
• Doe v. Daily News, L.P., 660 N.Y.S.2d 604 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) – Doe brings libel claim against newspaper for reporting on the fact that police disbelieved her accusation of rape. No discussion of pseudonym.
• Doe v. Roe, 400 N.Y.S.2d 668 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977) – Doe brings invasion of privacy claim; she was Roe’s psychiatric patient; Roe publishes a book detailing Doe’s confidences verbatim without Doe’s consent. The court notes that the file was sealed, pseudonyms used, and that there is “every reason to continue that arrangement.” Id. at 670 n.1.
• Anonymous v. Anonymous, 55 Misc.2d 663, 286 N.Y.S.2d 140 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1968) – Anonymous wife sues ex-husband seeking to enjoin his practice of sending his alimony checks made out to her name followed by epithets such as “adulteress.” No discussion of privacy claims per se, nor of pseudonymity.

• Doe v. Bellmore-Merrick Cent. High School Dist., 770 N.Y.S.2d 847 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003) – Defendant moved to have the record sealed under state law, plaintiffs objected. Plaintiffs, minors abused by employee of Defendant, already used pseudonyms before the court, an the court finds that the pseudonym was sufficient to protect Plaintiffs’ privacy while still accommodating the public interest to access the records. Id. at 850.