In John Doe 1 et al v. Oscar Davis, Jr. et al, 89 Misc. 3d 1210(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2026) – in which plaintiffs seek to recover damages for negligence, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, assault, respondeat superior, negligent hiring and violations of the New York State Human Rights Law for gender discrimination, sexual harassment and hostile work environment – the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under pseudonyms.
From the decision:
CPLR 2101 (c) requires that a summons and complaint shall include the names of all parties (emphasis added). The reasoning for this requirement relates to basic due process rights (Coe v. LaGuardia Airport Hotel Assoc., 134 Misc 2d 579 [NY County, 1987]). However, Courts have discretion in granting requests to proceed in an action under pseudonyms (Doe v. Khandker, et al, 221 AD3d 782 [2nd Dept, 2023]; Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F3d 185 [2nd Cir, 2008]. ” ‘In determining whether to grant a plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously, the court must use its discretion in balancing plaintiff’s privacy interest against the presumption in favor of open trials and against any potential prejudice to defendants’ ” (Doe v. Khandker citing Roe v Harborfields Cent. Sch. Dist. [internal citations omitted]).
In Doe v. Khandker, the Second Department set forth a five-prong test to assist the Courts in making its determinations. The factors are: 1) whether the plaintiff is challenging a governmental activity or an individual’s actions, 2) whether the plaintiff’s action requires disclosure of information of the utmost intimacy, 3) whether identification would put the plaintiff, or innocent third-parties, at risk of suffering physical or mental injury, 4) whether the defendant would be prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to proceed anonymously, and 5) the public interest in guaranteeing open access to the justice system.
Applying these factors to the case at bar, the Court finds that the plaintiffs John Doe 1, 2 and 3 may proceed anonymously. This lawsuit is of a sensitive nature alleging various forms of unwanted sexual assault and battery by defendant Davis, who was their supervisor in the Mount Vernon Public Library. Plaintiffs John Does 1-3 each submitted affirmations detailing the reasons they seek to remain anonymous. They each claim that since the allegations involve highly sensitive and personal matters related to an alleged sexual assault, disclosure of their identity would compound their trauma, expose them to potential retaliation, stigma and further emotional harm in their community (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 142, 167-168).
The Court agrees that revealing the names of plaintiffs John Doe 1-3 would compound their trauma and may result in potential retaliation, stigma and harm in their respective communities. This case has been pending for six years and has been zealously litigated by all parties. Defendants have conceded that they know John Does 1-3’s real identity and that depositions of these plaintiffs have already taken place. Thus, there is absolutely no prejudice to the defendants by allowing plaintiffs John Doe 1-3 to proceed anonymously. While the Court is aware of the presumption of open judicial proceedings, this presumption is not absolute. “Courts retain discretion to permit litigants to proceed pseudonymously when substantial privacy results outweigh the public interest in disclosure”
As a procedural point, the court rejected defendants’ argument that the court should deny plaintiffs’ motion because plaintiffs failed to file an order to show cause simultaneously with the filing of the summons and complaint, noting that defendants failed to raise this opposition when they filed an answer, did not file their own motions while the case was pending for six years, and “since defendants already know plaintiffs’ real identities and have ardently litigated this case for six years, they have not and will not suffer any prejudice by allowing plaintiffs to continue to pursue this litigation anonymously.”