Andersen v. North Shore Long Island Jewish Healthcare System's Zucker Hillside Hospital et al
Filing
81
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety regarding the motion to dismiss and leave to replead. Accordingly, plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R is modified regarding plaintiff's motion to seal, and tha t plaintiff's renewed motion to seal all documents and proceed anonymously is denied. Documents containing plaintiff's signature will not be sealed, but documents containing plaintiff's passport number may be resubmitted in redacted fo rm. Plaintiff may substitute her home address for a different address on the docket. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties participate in a telephone conference on March 20, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss plaintiff's amended complaint. At that ti me, counsel for defendants shall initiate the call, and once all parties are on the line, shall contact chambers at 631-712-5670. Plaintiff is directed not to file her fourth amended complaint until after that phone conference. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/1/2013. Mailed to pro se plaintiff FCM 3/1/13.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
:
LAUREN ANDERSEN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
– against –
:
:
NORTH SHORE LONG ISLAND JEWISH
:
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM’S ZUCKER
:
HILLSIDE HOSPITAL, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:
ORDER
12-CV-1049 (JFB)(ETB)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) from Magistrate Judge Boyle,
as well as pro se plaintiff’s objections to the R & R. The R & R recommended the following: (1)
that defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal claims be granted; (2) that the Court decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims; and (3) that plaintiff’s request
to remove her identifying information from the docket be denied, but that plaintiff’s request to seal
documents containing her signature, passport number, and social security number be granted.
Magistrate Judge Boyle also recommended sua sponte that plaintiff be given an opportunity to file
another amended complaint.
Along with her objections to the R&R, plaintiff has also submitted a renewed motion to
redact all case documents and proceed anonymously.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R in its
entirety, except for the section regarding plaintiff’s motion to seal which is modified as detailed in
this Order. The Court denies plaintiff’s motion to redact all case documents and proceed
anonymously, except that plaintiff may submit documents that redact her passport number. The
Court will grant leave to re-plead to attempt to correct the pleading defects identified in Magistrate
Judge Boyle’s R&R.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 2, 2012, plaintiff filed a complaint against North Shore Long Island Jewish
Healthcare System's Zucker Hillside Hospital and numerous individual defendants. Plaintiff
submitted an amended complaint on March 12, 2012 and a second amended complaint on May 1,
2012. On May 14, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On June 6, 2012, plaintiff filed her
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and defendants replied on June 29, 2012.
On June 6, 2012, plaintiff also filed a motion to amend her complaint. On June 15, 2012, the
Court ordered that any response to plaintiff’s June 6, 2012 motion to amend would be stayed pending
the Court's review of the current motion to dismiss. On July 12, 2012, the Court referred the motion
to dismiss to Magistrate Judge Boyle for a Report and Recommendation.
On August 7, 2012, plaintiff sent a letter to the pro se department requesting that the Court
remove her personal identifying information from the documents in this case. The Court treated this
letter as a motion to seal, and on August 9, 2012, referred this motion to Magistrate Judge Boyle.
On January 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge Boyle issued a R&R recommending that plaintiff’s
federal claims be dismissed, and that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s state law claims. Magistrate Judge Boyle also recommended that plaintiff be denied her
request to remove her identifying information from the docket, but that documents containing
plaintiff’s signature, passport number, and social security number be sealed. The R&R also
recommended sua sponte that plaintiff be given an opportunity to amend her complaint. On February
8, 2012, plaintiff submitted her objections to the R&R and also filed a renewed motion to redact all
court documents and to proceed anonymously.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party submits a timely objection to a report and recommendation, the district judge
will review the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected under a de novo
2
standard of review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any
part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may
accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Where clear notice has been given of the consequences
of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the report and recommendation
without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions,
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); see also Mario
v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of
the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as
a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”). However, because the failure to
file timely objections is not jurisdictional, the district judge can still excuse the failure to object in
a timely manner and exercise its discretion to decide the case on the merits to, for example, prevent
plain error. See Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[B]ecause the waiver rule is non
jurisdictional, we ‘may excuse the default in the interests of justice.’” (quoting Arn, 474 U.S. at
155)).
III. ANALYSIS
A. MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff offers numerous objections to the R&R. She details factual statements that she
believes are inaccurate and conclusions of law that she believes are incorrect. A significant portion
of plaintiff’s submission details how she would amend her complaint, including additional factual
details that would be included and a lengthy recitation of additional parties that would be added and
why those parties are liable for their actions.
3
Having reviewed the entire R&R de novo, and having considered all of plaintiff’s objections,
the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety regarding the motion to dismiss. In her objections, plaintiff
has failed to provide any persuasive argument as to why the thorough analysis in the R&R is
incorrect. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff’s federal claims are
dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law
claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966);
Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006). However, as discussed infra
and as recommended by Magistrate Judge Boyle, plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend her
complaint to address the issues raised in her objections.
B. MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND REDACT ALL DOCUMENTS
On August 7, 2012, plaintiff sent a letter to the pro se department requesting that all
documents related to her case that contain identifying information be removed because plaintiff was
allegedly contacted by an individual regarding the case. On August 9, 2012, the Court interpreted
this letter as a motion to seal and referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Boyle. The R&R
recommended that the request to seal all documents with identifying information be denied, but that
documents containing plaintiff’s signature, passport number, and social security number be sealed.
On February 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a renewed motion to proceed anonymously and redact
all case documents. Plaintiff argues that she should be able to use a pseudonym because (1) the Court
documents reveal plaintiff’s history of sexual abuse and mental health problems, (2) plaintiff fears
that her identity may be stolen, and (3) plaintiff fears that she may be the subject of retaliation.
Plaintiff states that she did not proceed anonymously originally because she did not understand the
implications and intricacies of the law as a pro se plaintiff.
While there is a presumption of open judicial proceedings in which litigants must reveal their
identities, “[i]t is within a court's discretion to allow a plaintiff to proceed anonymously.” Doe v.
Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359, 360 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). In “determining whether a plaintiff may be allowed
4
to maintain an action under a pseudonym, the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity must be balanced
against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant.” Sealed Plaintiff v.
Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit has detailed a nonexhaustive list of factors for a court to consider when making this determination:
(1) whether the litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal
nature; (2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm
to the party seeking to proceed anonymously or even more critically, to innocent
non-parties; (3) whether identification presents other harms and the likely severity
of those harms, including whether the injury litigated against would be incurred as
a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff's identity; (4) whether the plaintiff is
particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure, particularly in light of his
age; (5) whether the suit is challenging the actions of the government or that of
private parties; (6) whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to
press his claims anonymously, whether the nature of that prejudice (if any) differs at
any particular stage of the litigation, and whether any prejudice can be mitigated by
the district court; (7) whether the plaintiff's identity has thus far been kept
confidential; (8) whether the public’s interest in the litigation is furthered by
requiring the plaintiff to disclose his identity; (9) whether, because of the purely legal
nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest
in knowing the litigants’ identities; and (10) whether there are any alternative
mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of the plaintiff.
Id. at 190-91. (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted).
Balancing all of these factors, the Court holds that plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously
is denied. Specifically, while some aspects of this litigation concerns matters of an extremely
personal nature, plaintiff has already proceeded under her given name for almost a year. Plaintiff has
5
also stated in public court documents that a book published under a pseudonym details her
experiences. See Doe v. Del Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“[T]he plaintiff's interest
in anonymity is weaker where anonymity has already been compromised.”). Plaintiff has failed to
explain how proceeding publicly will further harm her mental health since this information has
already been publicly available for so long, including in a book. The Court has also considered that,
even if defendants may not be significantly prejudiced by plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym, plaintiff’s
generalized, unsubstantiated fears of retaliation and identity theft are insufficient to support allowing
her to proceed anonymously. See Shakur, 164 F.R.D. at 362 (holding that plaintiff may not proceed
anonymously in part because she failed to provide any details regarding alleged death threats).
Therefore, considering all of the factors enumerated by the Second Circuit, especially those
detailed above, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously. However, the Court will
allow plaintiff to substitute her home address for the business address she has submitted.
Plaintiff also requests that the Court redact all case documents containing sensitive
information, such as her signature and her passport number.1 “There is a long-established common
law right of public access to ‘judicial documents’ . . . .” Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d
616, 620-21 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). In determining whether documents should be sealed, a court must
determine whether a document is a “judicial document”; if it is, the court must “determine the weight
of the presumption of access” and “‘balance competing considerations against.’” Id. at 621-22
(quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006)).
The documents that plaintiff wishes to redact are clearly judicial documents. The weight of
presumption of access to these key court documents is significant, and the competing considerations
are minimal in light of the Court’s decision denying plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously.
Moreover, there is simply no basis to seal all documents containing plaintiff’s signature. Similarly,
1
Plaintiff notes that no documents contain her social security number.
6
there is no basis for plaintiff’s signature to be redacted. As noted in connection with the denial of
plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously, a generalized fear of identity theft is insufficient to
warrant sealing or redacting court documents with plaintiff’s signature.
However, the Court will allow plaintiff to substitute current court filings that contain her
passport number with documents that redact her passport number.
C. LEAVE TO REPLEAD
Magistrate Judge Boyle recommended sua sponte that plaintiff be given an opportunity to
replead and file an amended complaint. The Court agrees and adopts the R&R in its entirety
regarding leave to replead. “[A] pro se complaint is to be read liberally . . . [and a] court should not
dismiss without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives
any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794,
795 (2d Cir. 1999). Because the Court agrees that it may be possible for plaintiff to cure the defects
in her complaint, plaintiff will have an opportunity to amend her complaint one final time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties participate in a telephone conference on March
20, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss plaintiff’s amended complaint. At that time, counsel for defendants
shall initiate the call, and once all parties are on the line, shall contact chambers at 631-712-5670.
Plaintiff is directed not to file her fourth amended complaint until after that phone conference.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the R&R in its
entirety regarding the motion to dismiss and leave to replead. Accordingly, plaintiff’s federal claims
are dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law
claims. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R is modified regarding plaintiff’s motion to seal,
and that plaintiff’s renewed motion to seal all documents and proceed anonymously is denied.
Documents containing plaintiff’s signature will not be sealed, but documents containing plaintiff’s
7
passport number may be resubmitted in redacted form. Plaintiff may substitute her home address for
a different address on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
________________________________
JOSEPH F. BIANCO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:
March 1, 2013
Central Islip, New York
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?