From Judge Ronnie Abrams yesterday in Doe v. Legal Aid Society (S.D.N.Y.):
[1.] [Pseudonymity is more justified if] the litigation involves matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature. This case involves allegations of sexual harassment, which undoubtedly qualify. Thus, while this factor weighs in Plaintiff's favor, courts in this District have routinely held that allegations of sexual harassment and assault alone "are not sufficient to entitle a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym." …
[2.] Plaintiff presents no evidence of any existing or potential threats or intimidation that she would experience should her identity be revealed. She claims only that revealing her identity would cause her and her former clients at LAS emotional harm and embarrassment. As to the allegation that it will pose a risk of mental harm to her and her clients, it is conclusory at best.
Moreover, "a plaintiff must allege more than public humiliation—she must provide corroboration from medical professionals that detail the risk to plaintiff." Such evidence "must detail how revealing [P]laintiff's name in particular, as opposed to the trauma that could occur through reliving the experience through litigation, would cause harm." Plaintiff provides no such evidence, and as such, the Court cannot "speculate about the nature and severity of any mental injury from disclosure." …
