R. et al v. Watertown City School District et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________________________________
Jessy R. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
5:25-cv-01715
(FJS/MJK)
Watertown City School District et al.
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________
Nathan J. Moelker, Esq., for Plaintiffs
Frank W. Miller, Esq., for Defendants
Mitchell J. Katz, U.S. Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Jessy R. and Stephanie B. (“Plaintiffs”) individually move to
proceed by pseudonym in this action. (Dkts. 6, 7).1 Watertown City
School District; Larry Schmiegel, the superintendent; and Bridgette
Gates, a teacher, (“Defendants”) oppose both motions. (Dkt. 23-1). For
the reasons below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed
pseudonymously.
1 Plaintiffs motion also asks the Court to seal documents containing their actual
names. (Dkts. 6, 7). As the motion is being denied, the request for sealing is moot.
Case 5:25-cv-01715-FJS-MJK Document 30 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 8

2
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are parents bringing claims on behalf of their children.
(Dkt. 1 at ¶¶10-11). Both allege that this case arises from unlawful
conduct by Defendants, and both assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for alleged First Amendment violations, and Fourteenth Amendment
substantive and procedural due process violations. (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶113,
130-32).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“The title of [a] complaint must name all the parties,” which
“serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial
proceedings.” Fed R. Civ. P. 10(a). Rule 10(a) also safeguards “the
public’s common law right of access to judicial proceedings, which is a
right supported by the First Amendment.” Doe v. Skyline Automobiles
Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 401, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (cleaned up).
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).
Case 5:25-cv-01715-FJS-MJK Document 30 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 8

3
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, 2012 WL 5899331, at
Case 5:25-cv-01715-FJS-MJK Document 30 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 8

4
*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).
III. DISCUSSION
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed under
pseudonyms. The ten Sealed Plaintiff factors—especially the fact that
Plaintiffs have not kept confidentiality thus far—weigh significantly
against Plaintiffs proceeding under pseudonyms.
A. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to proceed
pseudonymously because they have affirmatively sought
national, regional, and local attention for their case.
The Court declines to allow Plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously.
Factors 2, 3, and 7 weigh heavily against pseudonymity. In finding that
Case 5:25-cv-01715-FJS-MJK Document 30 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 8

5
these factors weigh heavily against pseudonymity, the Court denies
Plaintiffs’ request to proceed pseudonymously.
Factors 2 and 3 weigh heavily against Plaintiffs, and factor 7
deals decisively with Plaintiffs’ request to proceed pseudonymously.
Factors 2 and 3 focus on the harm that identification would cause
Plaintiff. The relevant inquiry is “whether disclosure of the plaintiff’s
name in the course of the lawsuit would ‘uniquely’ cause harm and ‘how
grave the resultant harm would prove to be.’” Branca USA, Inc., 2022
WL 2713543, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022) (cleaned up). To show harm,
a “plaintiff must establish with sufficient specificity the incremental
injury that would result from disclosure of [their] identity.” Doe v.
Freydin, 2021 WL 4991731, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2021). Conclusory
statements regarding harm are of “limited utility.” Rapp v. Fowler, 537
F. Supp. 3d 521, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). Factor 7 looks to whether
confidentiality has been maintained thus far in the litigation. See
Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190. “Prior disclosure to the public of a
plaintiff’s identity effectively nullifies the shield of privacy provided by
proceeding anonymously.” Doe v. Solera Cap, LLC., 2019 WL 1437520,
at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (cleaned up).
Case 5:25-cv-01715-FJS-MJK Document 30 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Plaintiffs have offered nothing beyond conclusory statements
regarding harm. Instead, Plaintiffs seek pseudonymity to avoid the
general risk of revealing the identities of the minor children on whose
behalf they are suing. (Dkts. 6 at 1, and 7 at 1-2). This is a very
important consideration, except in this case, as Plaintiffs have
affirmatively sought public attention for their case.2 Instead of keeping
confidentiality, Plaintiffs have made television appearances; identified
themselves and spoken at a public Board of Education meeting; and
been the subject of several news articles and press releases created by
the American Center for Law and Justice.3 What’s more, at one Public
Board of education, one of the children involved in this litigation
identified themselves and spoke about the incident that precipitated
this case. (Dkt. 23-6). Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves admit that
“professional journalists” have addressed this case, and that “[l]ocal
media covered the controversy surrounding the incident, and the story
gained regional and national attention.” (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 67, 69).
2 See (Dkts. 23-2, 23-3, 23-4, 23-5, 23-6).
3 See (Dkts. 23-2, 23-3, 23-4, 23-5, 23-6).
Case 5:25-cv-01715-FJS-MJK Document 30 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 8

7
Again, “[p]rior disclosure to the public of a plaintiff’s identity
effectively nullifies the shield of privacy provided by proceeding
anonymously.” See Doe v. Cornell Univ., 3:19-CV-1189 (MAD/ML), 2021
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 248809, at 21 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2021). And because
Plaintiffs have nullified the shield of privacy by bringing attention to
this case, factors 2, 3, and 7 foreclose Plaintiffs from proceeding
pseudonymously.
* * *
After weighing the Sealed Plaintiff factors, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs have failed to prove that exceptional circumstances exist that
would support allowing them to proceed pseudonymously. Therefore,
their request to proceed pseudonymously is denied.
Case 5:25-cv-01715-FJS-MJK Document 30 Filed 03/02/26 Page 7 of 8

8
IV. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, based on the findings above, it is
ORDERED, that Jessy R. and Stephanie B.'s motions (Dkts. 6, 7)
be DENIED except that the minor children will continue to be
identified by initials only; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs file an amended complaint with their
actual names (identifying the minor children by initials only) no later
than one week after date of uploading and the Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to substitute the actual names of the adult
Plaintiffs on the docket of this action. This case shall proceed with the
caption so amended.
Dated: March 2, 2026.
______________________
Hon. Mitchell J. Katz
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-01715-FJS-MJK Document 30 Filed 03/02/26 Page 8 of 8