Doe v. United States

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The remaining arguments of the parties are either moot or without merit. For the reasons outlined above, the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously is denied. However, any references to the plaintiff's m edical information or the identity of the plaintiff's clients may be kept under seal, and any Court submissions referring to this information should be redacted. Any additional requests to seal or redact certain submissions will be addressed by the Court as they arise. The Clerk is directed to close all pending motions, and as further set forth in this order. Motions terminated: denying 3 MOTION TO REQUEST ANONYMOUS DESIGNATION IN PLACE OF PLAINTIFF'S NAME, filed by John Doe. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 5/31/2017) (ap)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN DOE,

16-cv-7256 (JGK)
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

- against UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se under the pseudonym “John
Doe,” brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1346(a) against
the defendant, the United States of America, alleging that the
Government improperly denied the plaintiff a tax refund for tax
years 2006 and 2008.

The plaintiff alleges that he filed his

tax returns for 2006, 2007, and 2008 in February 2013, and that
at the time of filing, he provided documentation of a financial
disability pursuant to 26 U.S.C § 6511(h) that should have
suspended the period of limitation for filing a claim for a
refund of an overpayment of taxes.

The plaintiff alleges that a

medical condition caused him to be financially disabled, which
is defined in 26 U.S.C § 6511(h)(2)(A) as an inability to
“manage . . . financial affairs by reason of a medically
determinable physical or mental impairment . . . .”

The

plaintiff alleges that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)

approved his refund claim for 2007 based on his alleged
financial disability, but erroneously denied his refund claims
for 2006 and 2008.
The plaintiff moves to retain this action under an
anonymous designation.
I.
Under Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
“[t]he title of [a] complaint must name all the parties.”
R. Civ. P. 10(a).

Fed.

“This requirement, though seemingly

pedestrian, serves the vital purpose of facilitating public
scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set
aside lightly.”

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d

185, 188–89 (2d Cir. 2008).

“[T]he interests of both the public

and the opposing party should be considered when determining
whether to grant an application to proceed under a pseudonym.”
Id. at 189.

This is a “factor-driven balancing inquiry [that]

requires a district court to exercise its discretion in the
course of weighing competing interests.”

Id. at 190.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has “note[d] with
approval” a list of non-exhaustive factors that courts should
consider when proceeding with such an inquiry.

Id. at 190-91.

Such factors include (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

2

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; (4)
whether the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible
harms of disclosure, particularly in light of the plaintiff’s
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; (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, due to 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.
See id. at 190.

Courts are “not required to list each of the

factors or use any particular formulation as long as it is clear
that the court balanced the interests at stake in reaching its
conclusion.”

Id. at 191 n.4.

3

In assessing a pro se plaintiff’s request to proceed
anonymously, courts construe such pleadings liberally.

See id.

at 191.
II.
In this case, the adequacy of alternative mechanisms for
protecting the confidentiality of the plaintiff weighs against
allowing anonymity.

See Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190.

The

plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to proceed under a
pseudonym because this case involves his personal and sensitive
medical information, the disclosure of which could affect his
future career prospects.

The plaintiff claims that he is

particularly vulnerable to such economic harms because of the
allegedly small number of professionals with the plaintiff’s
level of expertise, and he argues that the disclosure of his
identity would imperil his ability to continue to serve as a
confidential non-testifying expert witness and consultant to
this discrete sector.
However, “[r]edacted and sealed submissions are routinely
used in cases involving sensitive medical information.”
Anonymous v. Medco Health Sols., Inc., 588 F. App’x 34, 35 (2d
Cir. 2014) (rejecting the contention that a plaintiff’s medical
condition and its effect on career prospects justified the
plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously). Just as in Medco
Health, the plaintiff’s concerns about the private nature of his

4

medical information and its potentially negative impact on his
career can be sufficiently addressed through the alternative
mechanism of redaction and sealed submissions. 1

Particularly in

light of these alternative procedures for maintaining the
plaintiff’s privacy, the plaintiff’s prediction that his
economic prospects may be diminished is not a sufficient basis
to permit the plaintiff to proceed anonymously here.

See Abdel-

Razeq v. Alvarez & Marsal, Inc., No. 14-cv-5601 (HBP), 2015 WL
7017431, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2015) (concluding that
potential lost opportunities to serve as an expert witness was
“not a compelling reason to grant [a motion to redact
retroactively a defendant’s name or replace it with a pseudonym]
because [the movant] has not demonstrated any real, nonspeculative, impact on her professional prospects,” and
observing that “courts have consistently rejected anonymity
requests predicated on harm to a party’s reputational or
economic interests”); Guerrilla Girls, Inc. v. Kaz, 224 F.R.D.
571, 573 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying a request to proceed
anonymously because “the only injury that defendants allege they
will suffer if they are forced to reveal their true identities
1

The plaintiff relies on Doe v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 176
F.R.D. 464, 468 (E.D. Pa. 1997) to argue that the interest in keeping
medical information private can be sufficient to allow a plaintiff to
pursue litigation anonymously. But the court in Provident did not
evaluate the sufficiency of alternative measures for protecting the
confidentiality of the plaintiff. See 176 F.R.D. at 467-68. By
contrast, in this case, sealed submissions and redactions can
adequately protect the plaintiff’s privacy interests.

5

is economic injury, and they do not make clear either the nature
of the harm or the likelihood that it will occur”).
The plaintiff references a potential harm to innocent nonparties -- his clients –- and asserts that he has non-disclosure
agreements with certain clients such that “the public disclosure
of their names would cause significant harm to their privacy
rights.”

But the issue of whether the plaintiff should be

required to proceed in this litigation under his own name is
separate and apart from the issue of whether the plaintiff must
disclose his clients’ identities in court submissions.

Indeed,

any issue with the plaintiff’s clients’ identifying information
can adequately be addressed through redaction and sealed
submissions.
The plaintiff also asserts that pursuing this litigation
under his own name would increase the risk of retaliatory acts
by the Government, citing an incident where an IRS agent made
inappropriate comments about the plaintiff during a meeting with
the plaintiff’s tax attorneys.

While the IRS agent’s comments

as alleged are troubling, it is unclear how permitting the
plaintiff to proceed anonymously would mitigate the risk of
retaliation raised by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has already

disclosed his identity to the Government in order to allow the
Government to investigate the plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly,

to the extent that any such retaliatory motive exists,

6

permitting the plaintiff to proceed anonymously would do nothing
to protect him from future retaliatory actions because the
Government is already aware of the plaintiff’s identity.

See

Doe v. Nat’l Conference of Bar Exam’rs, No. 16-cv-264 (PKC),
2017 WL 74715, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2017) (denying a request
to proceed anonymously in part because it was clear that the
defendants were already “fully aware of Plaintiff’s identity and
her status as the plaintiff in this action”); see also Doe v.
Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying a
plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously in part because
“those who presumably would have any animosity toward [the
plaintiff] already know her true identity”).
The plaintiff argues that he should be permitted to proceed
anonymously because he is challenging the actions of the
government.

While a suit against the government is often a

factor that weighs in favor of permitting a plaintiff to proceed
anonymously, courts have also determined that it can weigh
against the use of a pseudonym.

See, e.g., Doe v. City of New

York, 201 F.R.D. 100, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“[P]laintiff is
challenging government activity, which in this case appears to
cut against her position because the involvement of the
government indicates that there is a public interest in the
facts of the incident at issue as opposed merely to a public
interest in knowledge of the manner in which the courts function

7

in resolving disputes.”).

Here, the fact that the plaintiff has

filed suit against the Government is insufficient to warrant
anonymity when there are alternative mechanisms for protecting
the plaintiff’s sensitive information.

The plaintiff is

challenging the technical application of the financial
disability provision of the tax laws –- a relatively
uncontroversial topic where the plaintiff’s risk of public scorn
is minimal.

Moreover, the disclosure of a public dispute by a

taxpayer with the Government is a matter of important public
interest.
In sum, the plaintiff’s posed concerns that could result
from disclosing his identity in this litigation “do[] not
compare with the serious interests that courts have found to
justify permitting a plaintiff to proceed anonymously, such as
risks of physical harm or unjustified invasions of privacy or
public embarrassment.”

See Nat’l Conference of Bar Exam’rs,

2017 WL 74715, at *3; see also Grottano v. The City of New York,
15-cv-9242 (RMB), 2016 WL 2604803, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30,
2016) (permitting the plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms in
a suit alleging that prison guards conducted inappropriate body
cavity searches prior to the plaintiffs’ visiting of prison
inmates); Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 15-cv-2624 (ER), 2015 WL
6116620, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2015) (permitting defendant to
proceed under pseudonym where defendant was accused of illegally

8

downloading adult videos); Michael v. Bloomberg L.P., 14-cv-2657
(TPG), 2015 WL 585592, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2015) (“There is
no issue here of physical retaliation or mental harm against
plaintiff. Nor is this the type of unusual case involving
matters of a highly sensitive or personal nature—i.e., claims
involving sexual orientation, pregnancy, or minor children—in
which courts have justified anonymous plaintiffs proceeding
pseudonymously.”).
Upon balancing the interests of the plaintiff, the
defendant, and the public, the relevant factors weigh against
permitting the plaintiff to proceed anonymously in this case.
CONCLUSION
The remaining arguments of the parties are either moot or
without merit.

For the reasons outlined above, the plaintiff’s

motion to proceed anonymously is denied.

However, any

references to the plaintiff’s medical information or the
identity of the plaintiff’s clients may be kept under seal, and
any Court submissions referring to this information should be
redacted.

Any additional requests to seal or redact certain

submissions will be addressed by the Court as they arise.
The Clerk is directed to close all pending motions.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
May 31, 2017

___________/s/______________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

9