Doe v. McCarthy

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________________________________________
Jane Doe,
Plaintiff,
v. 6:25-cv-1531 (BKS/MJK)
Harry McCarthy,
Defendant.
_________________________________________________________________
Lindsay Lieberman, Esq., for Plaintiff
Matthew R. Lembke, Esq., for Defendants
Mitchell J. Katz, U.S. Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff moves for permission to proceed under a pseudonym
in this action. (Dkt. 2). Defendant consents to the relief requested.
(Dkt. 9). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed under a pseudonym is granted.
I. Background
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, her stepfather, sexually abused
her while she slept and produced approximately thirty images depicting
her nude body. (Dkt. 2-1, ¶¶ 4,5,6). She alleges that the visual
depictions of the sexual abuse were distributed, or caused to be
distributed, by Defendant, and that at least one other individual has
Case 6:25-cv-01531-BKS-MJK Document 13 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 9

2
been found to be in possession of these visual depictions. (Id. at ¶11).
Plaintiff states that she has suffered, and continues to suffer, profound
injuries and emotional distress, which have been exacerbated by the
knowledge that these visual depictions have been circulated. (Id. at ¶¶
12,13, 14). Plaintiff is afraid that if her name is made public in this
lawsuit, it would draw additional attention to the images, thus exposing
her to further injury, including damage to her reputation. (Id. at ¶¶ 15,
16).
II. Discussion
A. Legal Standard
“When evaluating a request by a party to proceed anonymously or
by pseudonym courts consider numerous factors, including whether
identification would put the affected party at risk of suffering physical
or mental injury.” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. John Does Nos. 1-27, No.
11-CV-7627, 2012 WL 364048, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012) (quoting
Guerrilla Girls, Inc. v. Kaz, 224 F.R.D. 571, 573 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).
Case 6:25-cv-01531-BKS-MJK Document 13 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 9

3
The Second Circuit has provided a non-exhaustive list of factors to
consider in balancing a plaintiff’s interest in anonymity against the
public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to defendants. See Sealed
Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 189-190 (2d Cir. 2008).
Those factors are as follows:
(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 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Application of these factors to the particular facts of a case “is left
Case 6:25-cv-01531-BKS-MJK Document 13 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 9

4
to the sound discretion of the district court.” N. Jersey Media Group,
Inc. v. Doe, 2012 WL 5899331, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2012) (citing
Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d at 190). “However, the
bar to proceed in Court anonymously is high.” Doe v. Delta Air Lines,
Inc., No. 23-CV-931, 2023 WL 7000939, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2023).
“[P]seudonyms are the exception and not the rule,” and a party
seeking to “receive the protections of anonymity ... must make a case
rebutting that presumption.” United States v. Pilcher, 950 F.3d 39,
45 (2d Cir. 2020)).
i. Factor 1: Highly Sensitive and Personal Nature
This litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and
of a personal nature. The images at issue constitute child sexual
abuse material under 18 U.S.C. § 2251. The fact that these images
have been published creates an environment of ongoing harm to
Plaintiff, exacerbated by having her name associated with them.
This factor weighs in favor of allowing Plaintiff to proceed
anonymously.
Case 6:25-cv-01531-BKS-MJK Document 13 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 9

5
ii. Factor 2: Risk of Retaliatory Physical or Mental
Harm
Public disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity would associate her name
with the images, thus exposing her to further humiliation, stigma and
emotional harm. In addition, Plaintiff notes that Defendant, who was a
police officer, is due to be released from prison in 2028. (Dkt. 2-1, ¶ 17).
Courts have recognized that victims of sexual misconduct face
unique risks of severe psychological harm from forced disclosure.
Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 197 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). It is not
unreasonable to observe that Plaintiff may be exposed to retaliation or
harassment if she is publicly identified in this action. This factor
weighs in favor of allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously.
iii. Factor 3: Other Harms and Their Severity
Plaintiff asserts that public disclosure would cause her
permanent reputational and professional damage. (Dkt. 2-1, ¶ 15).
This is a reasonable assertion under the circumstances, especially
given the allegations of emotional trauma already suffered by
Plaintiff. See Doe V. Grace Baptist Church, 1:21-cv-890 (BKS/DJS),
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84767, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. May 11, 2022)
(holding anonymity is warranted where the plaintiff is vulnerable
Case 6:25-cv-01531-BKS-MJK Document 13 Filed 02/27/26 Page 5 of 9

6
to emotional and reputational harm).
This factor weighs in favor of allowing Plaintiff to proceed
anonymously.
iv. Factor 4: Plaintiff's Particular Vulnerability
Plaintiff was 13 years old when she was victimized. (Dkt. 2-1, ¶ 5)
While she is now an adult, Plaintiff alleges profound injury and
emotional distress and supportably alleges that she is susceptible to
ongoing trauma should her name be publicly linked to the images at
issue. This factor weighs in favor of proceeding anonymously.
v. Factor 5: Public v. Private Defendants
This factor is not applicable.
vi. Factor 6: Prejudice to Defendants
Plaintiff argues that Defendant will suffer no prejudice if
pseudonymity is granted because he knows her identity, can conduct
full discovery, and can defend the case without limitation. (Pl. Mem.
Of Law, Dkt. 2, pg. 9). “Generally, a defendant is ‘not greatly prejudiced
in his ability to conduct discovery’ if the defendant ‘knows Plaintiff’s name.’”
Doe v. DNA Diagnostics, No. 25-CV-2878, 2025 WL 1725449, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. 2025) (quoting Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 198 (E.D.N.Y.
Case 6:25-cv-01531-BKS-MJK Document 13 Filed 02/27/26 Page 6 of 9

7
2006)). This factor is readily resolved in Plaintiff’s favor for the reasons
stated and the fact that Defendant consents to the requested relief. See
(Dkt. 9).
vii. Factor 7: Confidentiality Maintained Thus Far
Plaintiff contends that her identity is not known to the public
at large and that she leads a private life. See (Dkt. 2-1, ¶18). This
case was filed under a pseudonym. The Court finds that this factor
favors Plaintiff.
viii/ix. Factors 8 & 9: Public Interest in Disclosure
While proceeding anonymously is the exception and not the rule,
as the public has a general interest in matters being litigated in this
court, the public’s interest can plainly be served in this case while at
the same time protecting Plaintiff from the injuries she reasonably
alleges would occur should she be required to reveal her name on the
public docket. The Court therefore finds that this factor favors the
relief requested by Plaintiff.
x. Factor 10: Other available protective mechanisms
The tenth factor inquires “whether there are any alternative
mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of the plaintiff.” Sealed
Case 6:25-cv-01531-BKS-MJK Document 13 Filed 02/27/26 Page 7 of 9

8
Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185, 188-89 (2d Cir.
2008). While redactions and a protective order might provide some
protection to Plaintiff, the Court finds that those other mechanisms
are insufficient in a case like this one. The Court agrees that the
only viable way to protect Plaintiff’s mental, emotional and
professional well-being is to allow her to proceed anonymously. See
Doe v. Smith, No. 1:19-cv-1121 (GLS/DJS), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
205707, at *6.
For the reasons set forth above, balancing the Plaintiff’s
interest in anonymity against both the public interest in disclosure
and any prejudice, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has established
that exceptional circumstances exist which support allowing her to
proceed anonymously.
WHEREFORE, based on the findings above, and upon the
consent of Defendant (Dkt. 9), it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 2) is GRANTED, and
it is hereby further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall appear in this action as “Jane
Doe,” that she be identified in all papers and pleadings filed in this
Case 6:25-cv-01531-BKS-MJK Document 13 Filed 02/27/26 Page 8 of 9

9
action as “Jane Doe,” and any documents/images that are filed in the
public record be redacted so as not to identify her.
Dated: February 27, 2026.
________________________
Hon. Mitchell J. Katz
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 6:25-cv-01531-BKS-MJK Document 13 Filed 02/27/26 Page 9 of 9