Alicja Stankiewicz v. Universal Commerce Corp. et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Nevertheless, because this is a joint request and this case has been settled without any finding of fault on either side, there is no especially pressing public interest in being able to access the litigants' ident ities through a search of the caption. See Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190. A limited sealing order is therefore justified. An order that masks the names in the caption will reduce the publicity afforded to the parties while still allowing access t o the unredacted documents in the court file. The Clerk shall amend the parties' names in the caption on the court docket so that they appear as plaintiff Jane Doe and defendants John Doe Corp. and John Doe. The parties' request to assign a pseudonym retroactively to all previously-filed documents is denied. That process would be burdensome and unnecessary in view of the action of both parties in litigating this case without pseudonyms, and as further set forth in this order. Motions terminated: 33 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Seal Document (retroactively assign a pseudonym to all parties' names on the docket) addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl from Christine L. Hogan and Marjorie Mesidor dated July 25, 2017, filed by Al Mason, Universal Commerce Corp. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 8/8/2017) (ap)

... ·-··-·

·------

J1

,_,l

--·~-·

'.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

!J:'r··"-'

'~rir·

.

'IE: JT

. ~·: -

'·

---:-/;.,-t.----!

.·1LED: __V'_?);?_q_/7_1

ALICJA STANKIEWICZ
16-cv-2050 (JGK)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

- against UNIVERSAL COMMERCE CORP. , ET AL. ,
Defendants.

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The Court received the parties'

joint request to assign a

pseudonym retroactively to all parties' names on the docket
sheet and to all of the publicly available documents filed in
this case, ECF No.

33.

"[W]hen determining whether a

[party] may be allowed to

maintain an action under a pseudonym, the [party's]

interest

must be balanced against both the public interest in disclosure
and any prejudice to the [opposing party]
Sealed Defendant,

.n

Sealed Plaintiff v.

537 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). Thus, even

when both parties agree to proceed anonymously,

the public

interest must be considered because "[t]he people have a right
to know who is using their courts.n Id.

(quotation marks

omitted) . This case does not involve particularly vulnerable
parties, nor does either party identify any risk of retaliatory
physical harm. See id. at 190 (listing relevant considerations
in the decision whether to allow a party to proceed
1

anonymously). Moreover, the case had been pending for over a
year before the parties decided to request anonymity. See id.
~-

-~

The fact that the parties now believe that they have suffered
economic harm as a result of the allegations at issue in this
case is not a basis to assign a pseudonym retroactively to
every publicly available document in this case. See Abdel-Razeq
v. Alvarez & Marshal, Inc., 2015 WL 7017431, at *4
Nov. 12, 2015)

(S.D.N.Y.

(noting that "courts have consistently rejected

anonymity requests predicated on harm to a party's reputational
or economic interests" and collecting cases). Nor is the mere
fact that the allegations are embarrassing a sufficient basis to
assign a pseudonym retroactively to each party. The plaintiff
chose to file this complaint, and the defendants chose to file
counterclaims without requesting anonymity. "Lawsuits are public
events" and "[t]he risk that a [party] may suffer some
embarrassment is not enough" to justify anonymity. M.M. v.
Zavaras, 139 F.3d 798, 803 (10th Cir. 1998)

(quotation marks

omitted).
Nevertheless, because this is a joint request and this case
has been settled without any finding of fault on either side,
there is no especially pressing public interest in being able to
access the litigants' identities through a search of the
caption. See Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190. A limited
sealing order is therefore justified. An order that masks the
2

names in the caption will reduce the publicity afforded to the
parties while still allowing access to the unredacted documents
in the court file.

The Clerk shall amend the parties' names in

the caption on the court docket so that they appear as plaintiff
Jane Doe and defendants John Doe Corp. and John Doe. The
parties' request to assign a pseudonym retroactively to all
previously-filed documents is denied. That process would be
burdensome and unnecessary in view of the action of both parties
in litigating this case without pseudonyms.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
August 8, 2017

United States District Judge

3