Doe v. Leonelli

6 Citing cases

  1. Doe v. Combs

    24-cv-8054 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2024)

    Indeed, many courts in this District have denied motions to proceed under a pseudonym despite concluding that the plaintiff's allegations were highly sensitive and personal. See id.; Shakur, 164 F.R.D. at 361 (denying motion despite concluding that “[i]f the allegations of the complaint are true, plaintiff was the victim of a brutal sexual assault” and “has very legitimate privacy concerns”); Rapp v. Fowler, 537 F.Supp.3d 521, 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2021); Doe v. Leonelli, 2022 WL 2003635, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2022); Doe 1 v. Branca USA, Inc., 2022 WL 2713543, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022); Townes, 2020 WL 2395159, at *3, 6, 7.

  2. Doe v. St. Lawrence Univ.

    8:23-CV-426 (BKS/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 9, 2024)

    “The eighth factor weighs whether the public's interest in the litigation is furthered by revelation of the plaintiff's identity.” Doe v. Leonelli, 2022 WL 2003635, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2022). Plaintiff identifies the public interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so that others will not be deterred from reporting similar crimes.

  3. Doe v. Sean Combs

    23-CV-10628 (JGLC) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2024)   Cited 3 times

    A plaintiff who levies serious allegations “puts [her] credibility in issue.” Doe v. Leonelli, No. 22-CV-3732 (CM), 2022 WL 2003635, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2022). In such a situation, when one party is anonymous while others are not, there is an “asymmetry in fact-gathering.” Id.

  4. Doe v. Telemundo Network Grp.

    22 Civ. 7665 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2023)   Cited 4 times

    Finally, Plaintiff's claims of retaliation against her unnamed “non-party family members” are completely speculative as Plaintiff does not explain what form the “retaliation” would take, let alone provide any evidence in support of that concern. See, e.g., Doe v. Leonelli, No. 22 Civ. 3732 (CM), 2022 WL 2003635, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2022) (concluding that the plaintiff's “fail[ure] to identify any direct evidence linking disclosure to any specific physical or mental injury” weighed against proceeding pseudonymously on these factors); Doe v. McLellan, No. 20 Civ. 5997 (GRB) (AYS), 2020 WL 7321377, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2020) (“Plaintiff submits no evidence of continued harm, nor any evidence of the severity or likelihood of retaliation or any physical or mental harm. Plaintiff simply projects generalized harm, and more is required for her to satisfy her burden.”); Skyline Autos., 375 F.Supp.3d at 406 (similar).

  5. Doe v. Juan Gonzales Agency Corp.

    21-CV-00610 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2022)   Cited 3 times
    In Doe v. Juan Gonzales Agency Corp., the Court found that the first factor weighed against pseudonymity partly because the plaintiff did not identify “additional circumstances of sensitivity.

    Plaintiff has not shown circumstances differentiating her case from numerous others in this Circuit where courts have required plaintiffs in sexual assault cases to reveal their real names. See, e.g., Branca, 2022 WL 2713543; Doe v. Leonelli, No. 22-CV-03732, 2022 WL 2003635 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2022); Doe v. Freydin, No. 21-CV-08371, 2021 WL 4991731 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2021); Rapp, 537 F.Supp.3d at 528; Skyline Auto., 375 F.Supp.3d. at 405.

  6. Doe v. Branca U.S., Inc.

    22-cv-3806 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2022)

    In Doe v. Leonelli, 2022 WL 2003635 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2022), the court considered the request of a married Roman-Catholic couple suing their former priest and parish community for sexual abuse that the wife suffered at the hands of the priest when she was a parishioner that they be able to proceed anonymously. The court denied the request.