(Id.). Defendants assert that "courts are generally less inclined to let the alleged victim proceed in litigation under a pseudonym" where the victim is not a minor, which plaintiff Jane Doe does not claim to be. (Id., citing Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2004)). Defendants also cite cases from other district courts for the proposition that there is a presumption in favor of disclosing a party's name in a lawsuit.

However, the Court may exempt a party from identifying herself in certain circumstances where the individual's "privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings." Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004). Leave to proceed under pseudonyms is discretionary with the court.

Under certain circumstances, however, plaintiffs may proceed under pseudonyms. Citizens for a Strong Ohio v. Marsh, 123 F. App'x 630, 636 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004)). Such an exception may be warranted if the plaintiff's "privacy interest substantially outweighs the presumption of open judicial proceedings."

See [DN 15]. “As a general matter, a complaint must state the names of all parties.” Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a)). “Under certain circumstances, however, the district court may allow a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym by granting a protective order.”

Leave to proceed under pseudonyms is discretionary with the court. Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004). In considering whether to grant such leave we start from the premise that proceeding pseudononymously is the exception rather than the rule.

A motion to proceed by pseudonym asks a court to weigh a plaintiff's privacy interests against the strong presumption favoring open judicial proceedings. See Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983). Generally, “[t]he public has a right to know who the parties are.”

” Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004). When deciding this question, the Sixth Circuit instructs that a court may consider the following factors: “(1) whether the plaintiffs seeking anonymity are suing to challenge governmental activity; (2) whether prosecution of the suit will compel the plaintiffs to disclose information of the utmost intimacy; (3) whether the litigation compels plaintiffs to disclose an intention to violate the law, thereby risking criminal prosecution; and (4) whether the plaintiffs are children.” Id.

A plaintiff may only proceed under a pseudonym by filing a motion for a protective order. Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004); Citizens for a Strong Ohio v. Marsh, 123 Fed.Appx. 630, 636 (6th Cir. 2005). “As a general matter, a complaint must state the names of all parties,” but a court “may excuse plaintiffs from identifying themselves in certain circumstances.”

A motion to proceed by pseudonym invites a court to weigh a plaintiff's privacy interests against the strong presumption favoring open judicial proceedings. See Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983). Generally, “[t]he public has a right to know who the parties are.”

In certain circumstances a court can permit an individual to proceed under a pseudonym if their privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings. Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004).