In Doe v. BBH LLC, No. REDACTED, 2025 WL 2990777 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 1, 2025), the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to proceed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe.”
From the decision:
The presumption of openness in judicial proceedings is a foundational principle, ensuring transparency and accountability. However, this presumption is not absolute. Courts retain discretion to permit litigants to proceed pseudonymously when substantial privacy rights outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The inquiry, as articulated in Doe v New York Univ., (6 Misc 3d 866 [Sup Ct New York County 2004]), centers upon whether disclosure would subject the party to stigma, harassment, or harm of such magnitude as to warrant judicial protection.
Plaintiff asserts that public exposure of her identity would inflict severe embarrassment, humiliation, and social stigmatization, consequences historically associated with victims of workplace sexual harassment. The sensitive nature of the allegations, committed while plaintiff was a minor and under the authority of her supervisors, clearly implicates “matters of the utmost intimacy.” This Court is persuaded that the allegations, including repeated sexualized battery and harassment endured from adolescence into adulthood, present circumstances where the plaintiff’s privacy interests are substantial.
Defendants rely upon Doe v Kidd, (19 Misc 3d 782 [Sup Ct New York County 2008]), to argue that embarrassment alone is insufficient. Yet that case involved allegations of inappropriate contact by a celebrity in a civil context, without the element of protracted workplace harassment of a vulnerable minor employee. Here, the risk of enduring stigma is exacerbated by the plaintiff’s young age at the inception of the misconduct and the imbalance of power inherent in the employer/employee relationship.
Moreover, plaintiff’s request does not unduly impair the public’s right to access judicial records. The substance of the allegations, the identities of defendants, and the claims asserted remain in full public view. Only plaintiff’s true name would be shielded, a measure far less restrictive than sealing proceedings or closing the courtroom. As noted in Anonymous v Anonymous, (744 NYS2d 659 [Sup Ct New York County 2002]), pseudonymity preserves the equilibrium between transparency and protection of vulnerable parties.
Defendants suffer no cognizable prejudice, as plaintiff’s identity has been disclosed to their counsel. They remain fully capable of investigating and defending against the claims through ordinary discovery channels. Indeed, as recognized in E.K. v New York Hosp. Cornell Med. Ctr., (600 NYS2d 993 [Sup Ct Orange County 1992]), when identity is known to adversaries, pseudonymity merely guards against unnecessary public dissemination.
The court concluded by rejecting defendants’ contention that plaintiff proffered no corroborating evidence to substantiate her fears, noting that “corroboration is not an absolute prerequisite” and that “[t]he record itself, which details a years-long pattern of sexual harassment beginning when plaintiff was a minor, suffices to demonstrate the heightened risk of stigmatization and emotional injury attendant upon public disclosure of identity.”