Peter Joseph Polinski v. Utica City Court, et. al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________________________________ Peter Joseph Polinski, Plaintiff, v. 6:26-CV-511 (GTS/MJK) Utica City Court, et. al.

Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ Peter Joseph Polinski, Plaintiff pro se Mitchell J. Katz, U.S. Magistrate Judge MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Polinski commenced this action on March 30, 2026 by filing a Complaint. (Dkt. 1). At that time, Polinksi also filed three motions. First, Polinski filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2).

Second, Polinski filed a motion to seal this action, or alternatively, to proceed under a pseudonym. (Dkt. 3). Third, Polinski filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 4). Only Polinski’s motion to seal this action, or alternatively, for leave to proceed under a pseudonym (Dkt. 3) is currently before this Court.

I. MOTION TO SEAL Polinski’s motion to seal is denied.

In support of his motion to seal, Polinski asserts that “the entire complaint involves Plaintiff’s most sensitive personal identifying information including: (a) Social Security Number; (b) Birth certificate number; (c) Date of birth; (d) Financial account information; (e) Trust arrangements; (f) Beneficial ownership claims; (g) Property rights in Plaintiff’s own name and identity.” (Dkt. 3, pg. 2).

In Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit held that “[d]ocuments may be sealed if specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”

Lugosch, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (quoting In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d at 116 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Consistent with the holding in Lugosch, Local Rule 5.3 (a) provides that a “party seeking to have a document, a portion of a document, a party or an entire case sealed bears the burden of filing an application setting forth the reason(s) that the referenced material should be sealed under the governing legal standard.”

Here, Polinski has not made the requisite showing that this case should be sealed. There is nothing in the Complaint or in the exhibits (Dkts. 1-1 through 1-9) attached thereto that warrants sealing. The Court finds that sealing of the requested documents is not necessary to preserve higher values and the request is not narrowly tailored to achieve that aim. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124.

Moreover, a sealing order is not necessary in this case because the information that Polinski seeks to protect is governed by Local Rule 5.2 and General Order 22, §§ 11.1 and 11.2 which require that certain “personal identifiers” be redacted. Among those “personal identifiers: are: (a) social security numbers and taxpayer identification numbers; (b) dates of birth; (c) financial account numbers; (d) home addresses; (e) driver’s license numbers; and (f) individual financial information.

Polinski’s fears about his personal information being disclosed to the public is addressed by the protections afforded by Local Rule 5.2 and General Order 22, §§ 11.1 and 11.2. It is incumbent on Polinski to comply with Local Rule 5.2. Accordingly, Polinski’s motion to seal is denied.

II. MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER A PSEUDONYM As an alternative to having this case sealed, Polinski requests that he be allowed to proceed under a pseudonym. For the reasons stated below, Polinski’s motion is denied.

When evaluating a request by a party to proceed anonymously or pseudonymously, courts conduct a “factor-driven balancing inquiry” that requires discretion in “weighing competing interests.” Anonymous v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 588 F. App’x 34 (2d Cir. 2014).

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in balancing a plaintiff’s interest in anonymity against the public interest in disclosure and potential prejudice to defendants. 537 F.3d 185, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2008). The factors are: (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 (cleaned up).

Applying these factors “is left to the sound discretion of the district court.” N. Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Doe, No. 12-CV-652), 2012 WL 5899331, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2012) (citing Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190). The Court need only consider the applicable factors. See id. at 189 n.4 (explaining that a court “is 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.”). And there is “a presumption that a plaintiff will proceed under [their] own name, such that pseudonyms are the exception and not the rule.”

United States v. Pilcher, 950 F.3d 39, 45 (2d Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).

“The burden is therefore on the party seeking anonymity to make a case rebutting the presumption in favor of public disclosure.” Id. (cleaned up).

Having considered the factors enunciated in Sealed Plaintiff, and the arguments in his motion, the Court finds that Polinksi is not entitled to proceed pseudonymously. Polinski has not presented any facts sufficient to satisfy the Court that, among other things, the subject matter of this action is a highly sensitive matter or that he is at risk of harm. At best, the Complaint alleges that Polinski is challenging the actions of the government. Without more, that is insufficient to tip the scales in Polinski’s favor. The Court therefore finds that Polinski is not entitled to proceed pseudonymously and his motion is therefore denied.

WHEREFORE, based on the findings above, it is hereby ORDERED, that Polinski’s motion to seal (Dkt. 3) is DENIED, and it is further ORDERED, that Polinski’s alternative motion to proceed under a pseudonym is DENIED, and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order and Report-Recommendation on Polinski by regular mail.!

Dated: April 1, 2026.

Hon. Mitchell J. Katz U.S. Magistrate Judge ' The Clerk shall also provide Israel with copies of all unreported decisions cited herein in accordance with Lebron y. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 2012 WL 5399331 and administrator of the Web site stoopidhousewives.com “outside of their respective law firms.” The plaintiff opposes Fa KeyCite Yellow Flag the motion. The defendant's request to file under seal a 3403 One Standard of Justice, Inc. y. City of Bristol, D.Conn., da -taration of the “individual authordefendant” in support of the motion pending the resolution of the instant motion was 2012 WL 5899331 granted, pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Procedure.

United States District Court, S.D. New York. | The “defendant” is the operator, administrator and author of thestoopidhousewives.com blog Web NORTH JERSEY MEDIA GROUP INC., Plaintiff, site.

Vv.

John DOE NOS. I-5 d/b/a Defendant's Contentions Stoopidhousewives.com, Defendants. A declaration by Anthony W. Brooks (“Brooks”), an attorney representing “the website stoopidhousewives.com No. 12 Civ. 6152(VM)(KNF). and the individual who operates it,” was submitted in support of the motion. Brooks contends that “[a]s evidenced Nov. 26, 2012. by the attached abusive communications, [the defendant] is vulnerable to physical and/or mental harm from the originators of such abusive communications.” Attached to MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Brooks's declaration are various exhibits, including Exhibit A, which Brooks contends contains examples of “threats and KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX, United States Magistrate Judge. other abusive and unsettling communications” that the Web Procedural Background sitestoopidhousewives.com receives on a regular basis from *1 The plaintiff commenced this copyright readers of that Web site. infringement action against John Doe Nos. 1-5 d/b/ astoopidhousewives.com, alleging the defendants published The defendant contends that the instant motion should on their Web site, “from April 2012 through August 2012,” be granted because to disclose the defendant's identifying certain photographs without permission, infringing on the information publicly would put the defendant at risk of plaintiffs intellectual property rights. The plaintiff alleged mental and physical abuse and will have a chilling effect that the defendants’ identities are unknown to it and the on the defendant's ability to speak freely. According to the “domain namestoopidhousewives.com is currently registered defendant, public anonymity would provide “a safeguard to Domains by Proxy, LLC, a registration service that from retaliation and harassment,” and would allow the conceals the identity of the beneficial registrant of the domain defendant “to write freely without fear that [the defendant] name.” The assigned district judge authorized the plaintiff can be located personally and attacked, mentally and/ to serve a subpoena on Domains by Proxy, LLC “to obtain physically,” as shown by the abusive communications the identity of John Doe Nos. 1-5 named in this action.” attached to Brooks's declaration, including the one, dated On September 28, 2012, the parties stipulated that Domains August 27, 2012, stating “THERE ABOUT 50 of us □□□ by Proxy, LLC will respond to the subpoena by sending You are going to get {—with to no return .” Morever, information to the plaintiff's counsel but the information the defendant contends, the defendant's “actual name and received will be used on an “attorney's eyes only” basis, other identifying information has no true relevance to this pending resolution of the defendant's motion “for a protective matter as the activity on the website took place without order to proceed anonymously.” knowledge of the author's identity,” and “the issues in this case are of a purely legal nature (i.¢., alleged past copyright Before the Court is the defendant's! motion to proceed infringement), such that the public interest in [the defendant's] : □ identity is ‘atypically weak.’ “ The defendant contends that under the fictitious name Stoopidhousewives.com and the disclosure of the defendant's identity is contrary to the for a protective order precluding the parties counsel public interest because it would weaken the defendant's from disclosing the identity of the individual author First Amendment right to “publicly anonymous □□□□□□□□ information is disclosed publicly, the defendant “will no Stoopidhousewives.com blog.” Moreover, the “Court should longer enjoy the safeguard from harassment that anonymity not allow a defendant to proceed under a fictitious name provides.” The defendant contends that the plaintiff “will to increase its chances of prevailing on the merits.” The not be prejudiced by [the defendant's] proceeding under a plaintiff maintains that the protective order is not warranted pseudonym, since [the plaintiff's] counsel is in possession because the defendant failed to provide any justification “by of [the defendant's] identifying information under an way of authority or argument,” for preventing the plaintiff Attorney's Eyes Only designation per the September 28, 2012 from learning the identity of the defendant. According to stipulation, and [the plaintiff] can refer to [the defendant] the plaintiff, such a restriction would prevent the plaintiff as ‘Stoopidhousewives.com’ in litigation documents, such as from searching its files to determine whether it had any prior court filings and third-party discovery, just as if [the plaintiff] dealings with the defendant “that could shed substantial light were proceeding against a business entity by the same on the defendant's willfulness,” which would be unfair and name.” Thus, the defendant's “interest in free expression and prejudicial. preventing mental and/or physical harm far outweighs [the plaintiff's] interest in public [disclosure of the defendant's] name and other identifying information.” Defendant's Reply The defendant's declaration, filed under seal to protect the name and identifying information of the defendant Plaintiff's Contentions pending resolution of the instant motion, states that *2 The plaintiff contends the defendant's motion should the defendant is the operator, administrator and author be denied because the evidence offered in support of the of thestoopidhousewives.com blog Web site, which the motion is hearsay and not sufficient to satisfy the high defendant has operated, authored and administered since its standard for allowing a party to proceed under a fictitious inception, in October 2010. According to the declaration, name. According to the plaintiff, the documents submitted the defendant does not operate the Web site on any third- by the defendant “do not demonstrate that defendant would party's behalf and has never provided any third-party, other be susceptible to any physical or mental harm as a result of than Domains by Proxy, LLC, with the defendant's name, being named in this action.” The e-mail message contained address or other identifying information in connection with in the defendant's Exhibit A, “appears to relate to a rivalry the operation, administration or authorship of the Web site. between Stoopidhousewives.com and another blogger, who The defendant states that a photograph of the defendant was is now deceased,” and “the email appears to threaten accessible on the Web site until approximately November defendant's blog, not defendant's person.” Similarly, the 2011, when the defendant began to receive “abusive plaintiff contends, the last comment contained in Exhibit A, communications wherein individuals were harassing me for “simply communicates the commenter's opinion that people my contact information.” The defendant contends that, to involved in the NJ Housewives franchise are at risk because the defendant's knowledge, “no such third-party is aware of three of the housewives are associated with a drug dealer. It is [the defendant's] identity.” Moreover, the defendant has not not a threat and the comment seems directed at the housewives entered into any relationship, agreement or arrangement with themselves, not the author of the blog.” Moreover, the the Bravo television network or any other media company, plaintiff contends, the defendant does not allege “any follow organization or content provider and has never received up with law enforcement with respect to the alleged threats.” any compensation or financial benefit from any such media company. The defendant states that the defendant is under According to the plaintiff, allowing the defendant to the direction, control or authority of no entity other that the proceed under a fictitious name would impair the plaintiff's defendant. ability to investigate the defendant's infringement and conduct discovery. For example, the plaintiff contends, *3 The defendant contends that the plaintiff speculates if the defendant proceeds under a fictitious name, the about the involvement of a media company in the defendant's plaintiff's counsel will be precluded from disclosing the Web site and exaggerates the prejudice it would suffer defendant's identity outside of its law firm and unable to because proceeding under a pseudonym is analogous to the seek discovery from third-party media companies concerning plaintiff suing a business entity by the same name. The their connection to or financial support of the defendant. defendant maintains that the plaintiff “would receive no Proxy), including any ‘substantial media company,’ has public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot ever been exposed to [the defendant's] given name or be set aside lightly. Certainly, identifying the parties to the other identifying information.” According to the defendant, proceeding is an important dimension of publicness. The the plaintiff “ignores the profanity-laced comment from a people have a right to know who is using their courts.” Id. www.stoopidhousewives.com reader dated August 27, 2012,” at 188–89 (internal quotation marks, alteration and citation and that disclosing publicly the defendant's name is contrary omitted). The Second Circuit held that “when determining to the public interest because it would weaken the defendant's whether a plaintiff may be allowed to maintain an action under “First Amendment protection to publicly anonymous speech a pseudonym, the plaintiff's interest in anonymity must be and no longer provide [the defendant] a safeguard from balanced against both the public interest in disclosure and any harassment at [the defendant's] home.” prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 189. In addition to “other factors relevant to the particular case under consideration,” the Second Circuit articulated ten non-exclusive factors that Legal Standard courts should consider in performing the balancing of interest Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides analysis that “[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a). “The intention of this rule is to apprise *4 (1) whether the litigation involves matters that are parties of who their opponents are and to protect the highly sensitive and of a personal nature ...; (2) whether public's legitimate interest in knowing the facts at issue identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental in court proceedings.” Doe v. Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359, harm to the ... party seeking to proceed anonymously (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “Among those facts is the identity or even more critically, to innocent non-parties ...; (3) of the parties.” Doe v. Deschamps, 64 F.R.D. 652, 653 whether identification presents other harms and the likely (D.Mont. 1974). The “use of fictitious names runs afoul of the severity of those harms, including whether the injury public's common law right of access to judicial proceedings.” litigated against would be incurred as a result of the Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d disclosure of the plaintiff's identity ...; (4) whether the 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). That right “is supported by the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible harm of First Amendment.” Doe v. Del Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154, 156 disclosure, particularly in light of his age ...; (5) whether (S.D.N.Y . 2006). “Judicial proceedings are an aspect of the suit is challenging the actions of the government or governance and thus should be open to public scrutiny in a that of private parties ...; (6) whether the defendant is democratic society.” Id. at 158. prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to press his claims anonymously, whether the nature of that prejudice (if The parties do not make citation to any authority permitting a any) differs at any particular stage of the litigation, and defendant to proceed in a civil action by using a pseudonym or whether any prejudice can be mitigated by the district articulating a standard governing the defendant's application court ...; (7) whether the plaintiff's identity has thus far to proceed in a civil action by using a pseudonym, and the been kept confidential ...; (8) whether the public's interest Court does not find any. However, federal courts, including in the litigation is furthered by requiring the plaintiff the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, have permitted plaintiffs to disclose his identity ...; (9) whether, because of the to proceed by using pseudonyms under certain circumstances purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, and have articulated standards for doing so. See Smith v. there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1999) (stating, without any the litigants' identities ...; and (10) whether there are any discussion, in a footnote to the caption that “[f]or the sake alternative mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of of the privacy of plaintiff's child, pseudonyms for plaintiff the plaintiff. and his family are employed throughout this opinion); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant # 1, 537 F.3d 185, 188–90 (2d Id. at 190 (internal quotation marks, alterations and Cir. 2008) (articulating the standard to be used in determining citations omitted). a plaintiff's application to prosecute her claims under a “The problem of anonymous plaintiffs involves pseudonym). considerations entirely different from those involving ‘John Doe’ defendants.” Deschamps, 64 F.R.D. at 652–53 n. 1. The In Sealed Plaintiff, the Second Circuit noted that Rule 10(a)'s factor-balancing inquiry that must be conducted to determine a pseudonym is left to the sound discretion of the district 2. Risk of Retaliatory Physical or Mental Harm to the court. See Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190. “A party ... from Defendant or Innocent Non–Parties whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order,” The defendant contends the defendant “could be exposed to and the “court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect physical and/or mental abuse at [the defendant's] place of a party ... from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or residence,” if the defendant's identity is revealed and, “in undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). view of the threatening and abusive communications received by [the defendant] incident to [the defendant's] writing, public anonymity provides a safeguard from retaliation and Application of Legal Standard harassment.” The defendant fails to identify or explain Absent authority on the standard governing the defendant's anything specific in connection with the defendant's writings motion to proceed by using a pseudonym, and mindful that on the defendant's Web site that could be a source of potential the concerns of proceeding under a pseudonym might differ retaliation and harassment. Moreover, the communications depending on whether the party seeking to proceed by using submitted as Exhibit A to Brooks's declaration do not a pseudonym is a plaintiff or a defendant, the Court will demonstrate that revealing the defendant's identity will place perform its balance of interests inquiry by applying the non- the defendant or innocent parties at risk of retaliatory exclusive list of factors enumerated in Sealed Plaintiff, 537 physical or mental harm. As the defendant contends in F.3d at 190, as well as any other factors relevant to the reply, these communications include “the profanity-laced circumstances of this case. comment from a www.stoopidhousewives.com reader dated August 27, 2012.”2 It appears, from the reader's comments in the defendant's Exhibit A, and from the plaintiff's 1. Matters of a Highly Sensitive and Personal Nature explanation in its opposition to the motion, that the Issues involving a highly sensitive and personal nature that August 27, 2012 reader's comment is related “to a rivalry are found in cases warranting the plaintiff in proceeding by betweenStoopidhousewives.com and another blogger, who is using a pseudonym, include matters “such as birth control, now deceased.” It also appears that the defendant's failure to abortion, homosexuality or the welfare rights of illegitimate mention the rival blogger's death on the defendant's Web site children or abandoned families,” in which “the normal caused readers to post “the profanity-laced” comments on the practice of disclosing the parties' identities yields ‘to a policy defendant's Web site, such as the comments submitted on (a) of protecting privacy in a very private matter.’ “ So. Methodist “2012/08/24 at 9:34 AM,” stating, in pertinent part, “all you Univ. Ass'n of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d had to do was give Lynn a damn mention, the woman died you 707, 712–13 (5th Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). “A plaintiff heartless cunt”; and (b) “2012/08/27 at 10:18 PM,” stating, in should be permitted to proceed anonymously only in those pertinent part, “Hey CUNT STOOPID, YOU FORGOT TO exceptional cases involving matters of a highly sensitive and ADD WHEN PUBLISHING MY COMMENT CUNT FACT personal nature,” and “[t]he risk that a plaintiff may suffer THAT ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS MENTION LYNN some embarrassment is not enough.” M.M. v. Zavaras, 139 HUDSON PASSING YOU STOOPID CUNT FACE COW!

F.3d 798, 803 (10th Cir. 1998); see Shakur, 164 F .R.D. at 362 YOU GOT HALF YOUR READERS FROM HER YOU (“claims of public humiliation and embarrassment ... are not HEARTLESS CUNT!” Furthermore, an e-mail message, sufficient grounds for allowing a plaintiff in a civil suit to contained in Exhibit A, dated “Feb 20, 2012 at 3:59 AM,” proceed anonymously”). sent to the defendant's Web site, from a reader who used to support and promote the defendant's Web site, and who *5 The defendant does not contend that the matters involved appears to have been blocked from accessing the defendant's in this litigation are of a highly sensitive and personal nature Web site, does not contain any threats; rather, it expresses the such that protecting the privacy of the defendant by not reader's disappointment about being blocked from accessing disclosing the defendant's identity is warranted. This is an the Web site. The comment dated “2012/09/24 at 5:30 PM,” action for copyright infringement, which does not involve any contained in Exhibit A, refers to “the ladies on NJ housewives issues of the utmost privacy, and this factor militates against especially Kathy and Melissa,” and states “I believe someone permitting the defendant to proceed by using a pseudonym. associated with the NJ franchise will be killed. Considering of the NJ housewives are still friendly with Kim D. A known drug trafficker. That's not a good look.” It is not clear defendant's Web site or the defendant's writings, as it does not condition for the defendant's publishing anonymously on appear to involve the defendant's Web site or refer to it in any the Internet. The defendant does not explain how or why way. revealing the defendant's identity in this action would hinder the defendant's ability to publish anonymously on the Internet.

2 In pertinent part, the August 27, 2012 comment Furthermore, the defendant provides no authority for the states “HOW THE FUCK IS WANTING YOU TO proposition that a party to a litigation is warranted in MENTION LYNN's DEATH PROFANITY? Here proceeding under a pseudonym solely because it publishes is a comment for you cunt! YOU DON'T WANT anonymously on the Internet, and the Court finds none.

TO LET HER POST IT, THERE ABOUT 50 of The defendant remains free to publish anonymously on the us CUNT! You are going to get fucked with no Internet. Therefore, this factor does not weigh in favor of return.” granting the defendant's request to proceed in this action by using a pseudonym. *6 The use of profane language by readers of the defendant's Web site, by itself, is not a sufficient ground warranting the defendant's proceeding in this action by using a pseudonym. 4. Whether the Defendant Is Particularly Vulnerable to The defendant presented no evidence establishing a risk the Possible Harm of Disclosure of retaliatory physical or mental harm would exist if the The defendant does not contend that any particular defendant's identity were to be revealed in this action. The vulnerability to the possible harm of disclosure exists, other defendant does not identify, in the defendant's declaration than the harm discussed above. Therefore, this factor does or by other evidence, any acts or omissions that the not support granting the defendant's request to proceed in this defendant perceives might pose a risk of retaliatory physical action by using a pseudonym. or mental harm if the defendant's identity is revealed.

The defendant's declaration states only that the defendant removed the defendant's photograph from the defendant's 5. Whether the Suit Is Challenging the Action of the Web site when the defendant “began to receive abusive Government or Private Parties communications wherein individuals were harassing me for *7 Usually, where plaintiffs are suing the government, “such my contact information.” The defendant does not explain suits involve no injury to the Government's ‘reputation,’ “ why, as the defendant contends, the defendant “could be whereas “the mere filing of a civil action against other private exposed to physical and/or mental abuse at [the defendant's] parties may cause damage to their good names and reputation place of residence,” solely because the “individuals [have and may also result in economic harm,” and courts find been] harassing [the defendant] for [the defendant's] contact that these consequences provide more justification for not information.” The defendant does not explain why or in granting a plaintiff's request for anonymity in the private relation to what factual circumstances those “individuals” parties' cases. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d at 713. Here, no have been “harassing” the defendant for the defendant's government entity is involved that would militate in favor contact information. The evidence before the Court does of granting the request to proceed by using a pseudonym, not support the defendant's contention that the defendant or and no particular reason exists that warrants the defendant in an innocent party will be exposed to a risk of retaliatory proceeding under a pseudonym in this action. physical or mental harm if the defendant's identity is revealed in this action, and this factor militates against granting the 6. Prejudice to the Plaintiff, Whether the Nature of the defendant's request to proceed by using a pseudonym.

Prejudice Differs at Different Stages of Litigation and Whether Any Prejudice Can Be Mitigated by the Court 3. Whether Identification Presents Other Harm and the The plaintiff contends that it would be prejudiced if the Severity of That Harm defendant is allowed to proceed using a pseudonym, because The defendant contends that harm other than “physical it would impair the plaintiff's ability to investigate the and/or mental” would result from revealing the defendant's defendant's alleged infringement of the plaintiff's copyright identity in this action, namely, that “it would weaken and limit its ability to conduct discovery severely, especially [the defendant's] First Amendment protections to publicly to seek “discovery from third-party media companies concerning their connection to, or financial support of, the declaration states that the defendant has not entered into pseudonym. any relationship or agreement with any media company or received any compensation or other financial benefit from any media company, that statement cannot serve to 7. Whether the Defendant's Identity Has Thus Far Been limit or prevent the plaintiff from conducting its discovery Kept Confidential in the way the plaintiff wishes. Moreover, the plaintiff The parties stipulated that the defendant's identity remains may choose not to limit its discovery to the defendant's for attorney's eyes only pending resolution of the instant relationships or agreements with and compensation or motion. See Docket Entry No. 14. However, despite the financial benefits from media companies, since the scope of parties' stipulation to keep the defendant's identity known to discovery is very broad. See Maresco v. Evans Chemetics, the attorneys only, pending resolution of this motion, which Div. of W.R. Grace & Co., 964 F.2d 106, 114 (2d would militate in favor of granting the defendant's request to Cir. 1992). The defendant's declaration that the defendant proceed by using a pseudonym, the fact that the defendant's “[has] never provided any third-party (company, individual, photograph was available to the public on the defendant's Web or otherwise) with my name, address, or other identifying site until “approximately November 2011,” undermines the information in connection with my operation, administration, notion that the defendant's identity has been kept confidential or authorship of www.stoopidhousewives .com other thus far. Accordingly, it cannot be said that this factor weighs than Domain–By–Proxy, LLC,” is undermined by the in favor of granting the defendant's request to proceed by defendant's statement that “a photo of myself was accessible using a pseudonym. on www .stoopidhousewives.com until approximately November 2011,” since the photograph is identifying 8. Whether the Public's Interest in Litigation Is Furthered information pertinent to the defendant that was available to by Disclosure of the Defendant's Identity the public prior to November 2011. Moreover, the defendant's The defendant failed to address, in its motion, the public's declaration that the defendant did not provide any third- interest in the litigation, namely its right of access to judicial party with the defendant's name, address or other identifying proceedings. See Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1067. information in connection with the defendant's Web site does The public's interest in litigation and its right of access not support the defendant's contention, in the defendant's to judicial proceedings is furthered by disclosure of the memorandum of law, that the plaintiff “would receive no defendant's identity, since nothing in the defendant's motion discovery since no third party ... has ever been exposed to [the suggests the contrary. Thus, this factor militates against defendant's] given name or other identifying information.” granting the defendant's request to proceed by using a Many ways exist for a third-party to “be exposed” to the pseudonym. defendant's identifying information beyond the defendant providing the defendant's own identifying information to a third-party, and that is what the plaintiff should be entitled 9. Whether, Because of the Purely Legal Nature of the to learn by conducting discovery based on the defendant's Issues or Otherwise, an Atypically Weak Public Interest in identity, rather than the defendant's pseudonym. Knowing the Defendant's Identity Exists “[W]here a lawsuit is brought solely against the government *8 Since the parties are at the initial stage of the litigation, and seeks to raise an abstract question of law that affects the prejudice that would attend the plaintiff at this stage, if many similarly situated individuals, the identities of the the defendant is permitted to proceed by using a pseudonym, particular parties bringing the suit may be largely irrelevant would be significant and the defendant's suggestion that the to the public concern with the nature of the process.” Del plaintiff conduct discovery by using a pseudonym, would Rio, 241 F.R.D. at 158. On the other hand, “[p]rivate civil not mitigate the prejudice, as explained above. Significant suits, individually and certainly in the aggregate, do not prejudice will also attend the plaintiff in the later stages only advance the parties' private interests, but also further of the proceedings, including the trial, when factfinding the public's interest in enforcing legal and social norms”; will depend, among other things, on the credibility of the thus, where the litigation involves, not “abstract challenges to witnesses, and the defendant's use of a pseudonym would public policies[,] but rather ... particular actions and incidents, not mitigate that prejudice. Thus, this factor does not favor open proceedings nevertheless benefit the public as well as the parties and also serve the judicial interest in accurate fact- are concerned that allowing a party to proceed anonymously for protecting the defendant's identity at the outset, no need exists to contemplate alternative mechanisms for protecting “could unfairly impede [the nonanonymous party's] ability to the defendant's identity. The defendant did not articulate any impeach the ... credibility [of the party seeking to proceed other factors relevant to this action that the Court should anonymously] through cross examination and introduction of consider in determining whether the defendant should p roc personal evidence at trial.” Id. (citation omitted). eed by using a pseudonym, and the Court does not find that any other factors particular to this action warrant granting the *9 The defendant contends that “the public interest in [the defendant's request to proceed by using a pseudonym. The defendant's] identity is ‘atypically weak,’ “ because “the defendant made no showing of good cause for a protective issues in the case are of a purely legal nature (i.e., alleged order “precluding the parties' counsel from disclosing the past copyright infringement).” However, the defendant's identity of the individual author and administrator of the contention is erroneous; this is not a case in which the websitestoopidhousewives.com outside of their respective issues are of a purely legal nature, such as in the case law firms.” of a challenge to the constitutionality of legislation. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U .S. 113, 116, 93 S.Ct. 705, 708 (1973) (involving constitutional challenges to state Conclusion criminal abortion legislation). The “alleged past copyright For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to proceed infringement” involves fact-finding specific to the litigants in under the fictitious name “Stoopidhousewives.com,” and this action and open proceedings will benefit the public and for a protective order, Docket Entry No. 8, is denied. the litigants, as well as serve the judicial interest in accurate Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the fact-finding and fair adjudication. The fact-finding in this document, Docket Entry No. 1, and, thereafter, enter the case will necessarily involve the issue of witness credibility. unsealed document on the docket sheet maintained for this “[C]oncealing the name of a party could deprive a litigant and action. the court of the chance that a yet unknown witness would, upon learning that fact about the case, ... step forward with SO ORDERED: valuable information about the events or the credibility of witnesses.” Del Rio, 241 F.R.D. at 159. Therefore, this factor militates against granting the defendant's request to proceed All Citations by using a pseudonym.

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 5899331 10. Whether Alternative Mechanisms Exist for Protecting the Confidentiality of the Party Seeking to Proceed by Using a Pseudonym End of Document © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Filings (3) Title PDF Court Date Type 1. Amended Complaint and Jury Demand Ga S.D.N.Y. Dec. 04, 2012 Pleading NORTH JERSEY MEDIA GROUP INC., Plaintiff, v. “ Marjorie ADAMS and John Doe Nos. 2-5, All d/b/a Stoopidnousewives.com, Defendants. 2012 WL 7655724 2. Memorandum of Plaintiff in Opposition to a Ga S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2012 Motion Defendant's Motion to Proceed under a Fictitious “ Name and for a Protective Order NORTH JERSEY MEDIA GROUP INC., Plaintiff, v. John DOE Nos. 1-5 d/b/a stoopidhousewives.com, Defendants. 2012 WL 6949403 3. Docket 1:12-CV-06152 — S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2012 Docket North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. John Doe Nos. 1-5 There are no History results for this citation.