John Doe v. Utica City Court et al

1
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.
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 15

2
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.”
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 15

3
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.
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 15

4
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
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 4 of 15

5
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).
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 5 of 15

6
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.1
Dated: April 1, 2026.
1 The Clerk shall also provide Israel with copies of all unreported decisions cited herein in
accordance with Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
_______________________________
Hon. Mitchell J. Katz
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 6 of 15

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-5, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
2012 WL 5899331
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
KeyCite Yellow Flag
Distinguished by One Standard of Justice, Inc. v. City of Bristol, D.Conn.,
December 9, 2022
2012 WL 5899331
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court,
S.D. New York.
NORTH JERSEY MEDIA GROUP INC., Plaintiff,
v.
John DOE NOS. 1–5 d/b/a
Stoopidhousewives.com, Defendants.
No. 12 Civ. 6152(VM)(KNF).
|
Nov. 26, 2012.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX, United States Magistrate Judge.
Procedural Background
*1 The plaintiff commenced this copyright
infringement action against John Doe Nos. 1–5 d/b/
astoopidhousewives.com, alleging the defendants published
on their Web site, “from April 2012 through August 2012,”
certain photographs without permission, infringing on the
plaintiff's intellectual property rights. The plaintiff alleged
that the defendants' identities are unknown to it and the
“domain namestoopidhousewives.com is currently registered
to Domains by Proxy, LLC, a registration service that
conceals the identity of the beneficial registrant of the domain
name.” The assigned district judge authorized the plaintiff
to serve a subpoena on Domains by Proxy, LLC “to obtain
the identity of John Doe Nos. 1–5 named in this action.”
On September 28, 2012, the parties stipulated that Domains
by Proxy, LLC will respond to the subpoena by sending
information to the plaintiff's counsel but the information
received will be used on an “attorney's eyes only” basis,
pending resolution of the defendant's motion “for a protective
order to proceed anonymously.”
Before the Court is the defendant's 1 motion to proceed
under the fictitious name “Stoopidhousewives.com” and
for a protective order precluding the parties' counsel
from disclosing the identity of the individual author
and administrator of the Web site stoopidhousewives.com
“outside of their respective law firms.” The plaintiff opposes
the motion. The defendant's request to file under seal a
declaration of the “individual authordefendant” in support of
the motion pending the resolution of the instant motion was
granted, pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
1 The “defendant” is the operator, administrator and
author of thestoopidhousewives.com blog Web
site.
Defendant's Contentions
A declaration by Anthony W. Brooks (“Brooks”), an
attorney representing “the website stoopidhousewives.com
and the individual who operates it,” was submitted in
support of the motion. Brooks contends that “[a]s evidenced
by the attached abusive communications, [the defendant]
is vulnerable to physical and/or mental harm from the
originators of such abusive communications.” Attached to
Brooks's declaration are various exhibits, including Exhibit
A, which Brooks contends contains examples of “threats and
other abusive and unsettling communications” that the Web
sitestoopidhousewives.com receives on a regular basis from
readers of that Web site.
The defendant contends that the instant motion should
be granted because to disclose the defendant's identifying
information publicly would put the defendant at risk of
mental and physical abuse and will have a chilling effect
on the defendant's ability to speak freely. According to the
defendant, public anonymity would provide “a safeguard
from retaliation and harassment,” and would allow the
defendant “to write freely without fear that [the defendant]
can be located personally and attacked, mentally and/
or physically,” as shown by the abusive communications
attached to Brooks's declaration, including the one, dated
August 27, 2012, stating “THERE ABOUT 50 of us C-!
You are going to get f—with to no return .” Morever,
the defendant contends, the defendant's “actual name and
other identifying information has no true relevance to this
matter as the activity on the website took place without
knowledge of the author's identity,” and “the issues in this
case are of a purely legal nature (i.e., alleged past copyright
infringement), such that the public interest in [the defendant's]
identity is ‘atypically weak.’ “ The defendant contends that
the disclosure of the defendant's identity is contrary to the
public interest because it would weaken the defendant's
First Amendment right to “publicly anonymous speech.”
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 7 of 15

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-5, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
2012 WL 5899331
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
The defendant maintains that if the defendant's identifying
information is disclosed publicly, the defendant “will no
longer enjoy the safeguard from harassment that anonymity
provides.” The defendant contends that the plaintiff “will
not be prejudiced by [the defendant's] proceeding under a
pseudonym, since [the plaintiff's] counsel is in possession
of [the defendant's] identifying information under an
Attorney's Eyes Only designation per the September 28, 2012
stipulation, and [the plaintiff] can refer to [the defendant]
as ‘Stoopidhousewives.com’ in litigation documents, such as
court filings and third-party discovery, just as if [the plaintiff]
were proceeding against a business entity by the same
name.” Thus, the defendant's “interest in free expression and
preventing mental and/or physical harm far outweighs [the
plaintiff's] interest in public [disclosure of the defendant's]
name and other identifying information.”
Plaintiff's Contentions
*2 The plaintiff contends the defendant's motion should
be denied because the evidence offered in support of the
motion is hearsay and not sufficient to satisfy the high
standard for allowing a party to proceed under a fictitious
name. According to the plaintiff, the documents submitted
by the defendant “do not demonstrate that defendant would
be susceptible to any physical or mental harm as a result of
being named in this action.” The e-mail message contained
in the defendant's Exhibit A, “appears to relate to a rivalry
between Stoopidhousewives.com and another blogger, who
is now deceased,” and “the email appears to threaten
defendant's blog, not defendant's person.” Similarly, the
plaintiff contends, the last comment contained in Exhibit A,
“simply communicates the commenter's opinion that people
involved in the NJ Housewives franchise are at risk because
three of the housewives are associated with a drug dealer. It is
not a threat and the comment seems directed at the housewives
themselves, not the author of the blog.” Moreover, the
plaintiff contends, the defendant does not allege “any follow
up with law enforcement with respect to the alleged threats.”
According to the plaintiff, allowing the defendant to
proceed under a fictitious name would impair the plaintiff's
ability to investigate the defendant's infringement and
conduct discovery. For example, the plaintiff contends,
if the defendant proceeds under a fictitious name, the
plaintiff's counsel will be precluded from disclosing the
defendant's identity outside of its law firm and unable to
seek discovery from third-party media companies concerning
their connection to or financial support of the defendant.
The plaintiff contends that the “evidence suggests the
involvement of some media company in the operation of the
Stoopidhousewives.com blog.” Moreover, the “Court should
not allow a defendant to proceed under a fictitious name
to increase its chances of prevailing on the merits.” The
plaintiff maintains that the protective order is not warranted
because the defendant failed to provide any justification “by
way of authority or argument,” for preventing the plaintiff
from learning the identity of the defendant. According to
the plaintiff, such a restriction would prevent the plaintiff
from searching its files to determine whether it had any prior
dealings with the defendant “that could shed substantial light
on the defendant's willfulness,” which would be unfair and
prejudicial.
Defendant's Reply
The defendant's declaration, filed under seal to protect
the name and identifying information of the defendant
pending resolution of the instant motion, states that
the defendant is the operator, administrator and author
of thestoopidhousewives.com blog Web site, which the
defendant has operated, authored and administered since its
inception, in October 2010. According to the declaration,
the defendant does not operate the Web site on any third-
party's behalf and has never provided any third-party, other
than Domains by Proxy, LLC, with the defendant's name,
address or other identifying information in connection with
the operation, administration or authorship of the Web site.
The defendant states that a photograph of the defendant was
accessible on the Web site until approximately November
2011, when the defendant began to receive “abusive
communications wherein individuals were harassing me for
my contact information.” The defendant contends that, to
the defendant's knowledge, “no such third-party is aware of
[the defendant's] identity.” Moreover, the defendant has not
entered into any relationship, agreement or arrangement with
the Bravo television network or any other media company,
organization or content provider and has never received
any compensation or financial benefit from any such media
company. The defendant states that the defendant is under
the direction, control or authority of no entity other that the
defendant.
*3 The defendant contends that the plaintiff speculates
about the involvement of a media company in the defendant's
Web site and exaggerates the prejudice it would suffer
because proceeding under a pseudonym is analogous to the
plaintiff suing a business entity by the same name. The
defendant maintains that the plaintiff “would receive no
discovery” if it referred to the defendant by the defendant's
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 8 of 15

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-5, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
2012 WL 5899331
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
name, “since no third party (other than Domain–By–
Proxy), including any ‘substantial media company,’ has
ever been exposed to [the defendant's] given name or
other identifying information.” According to the defendant,
the plaintiff “ignores the profanity-laced comment from a
www.stoopidhousewives.com reader dated August 27, 2012,”
and that disclosing publicly the defendant's name is contrary
to the public interest because it would weaken the defendant's
“First Amendment protection to publicly anonymous speech
and no longer provide [the defendant] a safeguard from
harassment at [the defendant's] home.”
Legal Standard
Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
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
parties of who their opponents are and to protect the
public's legitimate interest in knowing the facts at issue
in court proceedings.” Doe v. Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359,
360 (S.D.N.Y.1996). “Among those facts is the identity
of the parties.” Doe v. Deschamps, 64 F.R.D. 652, 653
(D.Mont.1974). The “use of fictitious names runs afoul of the
public's common law right of access to judicial proceedings.”
Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d
1058, 1067 (9th Cir.2000). That right “is supported by the
First Amendment.” Doe v. Del Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154, 156
(S.D.N.Y .2006). “Judicial proceedings are an aspect of
governance and thus should be open to public scrutiny in a
democratic society.” Id. at 158.
The parties do not make citation to any authority permitting a
defendant to proceed in a civil action by using a pseudonym or
articulating a standard governing the defendant's application
to proceed in a civil action by using a pseudonym, and the
Court does not find any. However, federal courts, including
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, have permitted plaintiffs
to proceed by using pseudonyms under certain circumstances
and have articulated standards for doing so. See Smith v.
Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 n. 1 (2d Cir.1999) (stating, without any
discussion, in a footnote to the caption that “[f]or the sake
of the privacy of plaintiff's child, pseudonyms for plaintiff
and his family are employed throughout this opinion); Sealed
Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant # 1, 537 F.3d 185, 188–90 (2d
Cir.2008) (articulating the standard to be used in determining
a plaintiff's application to prosecute her claims under a
pseudonym).
In Sealed Plaintiff, the Second Circuit noted that Rule 10(a)'s
requirement that a complaint name all the parties, “though
seemingly pedestrian, serves the vital purpose of facilitating
public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot
be set aside lightly. Certainly, identifying the parties to the
proceeding is an important dimension of publicness. The
people have a right to know who is using their courts.” Id.
at 188–89 (internal quotation marks, alteration and citation
omitted). The Second Circuit held that “when determining
whether a plaintiff may be allowed to maintain an action under
a pseudonym, the plaintiff's interest in anonymity must be
balanced against both the public interest in disclosure and any
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
courts should consider in performing the balancing of interest
analysis
*4 (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 harm 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, alterations and
citations omitted).
“The problem of anonymous plaintiffs involves
considerations entirely different from those involving ‘John
Doe’ defendants.” Deschamps, 64 F.R.D. at 652–53 n. 1. The
factor-balancing inquiry that must be conducted to determine
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 9 of 15

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-5, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
2012 WL 5899331
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4
whether circumstances warrant a party in proceeding under
a pseudonym is left to the sound discretion of the district
court. See Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190. “A party ... from
whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order,”
and the “court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect
a party ... from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1).
Application of Legal Standard
Absent authority on the standard governing the defendant's
motion to proceed by using a pseudonym, and mindful that
the concerns of proceeding under a pseudonym might differ
depending on whether the party seeking to proceed by using
a pseudonym is a plaintiff or a defendant, the Court will
perform its balance of interests inquiry by applying the non-
exclusive list of factors enumerated in Sealed Plaintiff, 537
F.3d at 190, as well as any other factors relevant to the
circumstances of this case.
1. Matters of a Highly Sensitive and Personal Nature
Issues involving a highly sensitive and personal nature that
are found in cases warranting the plaintiff in proceeding by
using a pseudonym, include matters “such as birth control,
abortion, homosexuality or the welfare rights of illegitimate
children or abandoned families,” in which “the normal
practice of disclosing the parties' identities yields ‘to a policy
of protecting privacy in a very private matter.’ “ So. Methodist
Univ. Ass'n of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d
707, 712–13 (5th Cir.1979) (citations omitted). “A plaintiff
should be permitted to proceed anonymously only in those
exceptional cases involving matters of a highly sensitive and
personal nature,” and “[t]he risk that a plaintiff may suffer
some embarrassment is not enough.” M.M. v. Zavaras, 139
F.3d 798, 803 (10th Cir.1998); see Shakur, 164 F .R.D. at 362
(“claims of public humiliation and embarrassment ... are not
sufficient grounds for allowing a plaintiff in a civil suit to
proceed anonymously”).
*5 The defendant does not contend that the matters involved
in this litigation are of a highly sensitive and personal nature
such that protecting the privacy of the defendant by not
disclosing the defendant's identity is warranted. This is an
action for copyright infringement, which does not involve any
issues of the utmost privacy, and this factor militates against
permitting the defendant to proceed by using a pseudonym.
2. Risk of Retaliatory Physical or Mental Harm to the
Defendant or Innocent Non–Parties
The defendant contends the defendant “could be exposed to
physical and/or mental abuse at [the defendant's] place of
residence,” if the defendant's identity is revealed and, “in
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
harassment.” The defendant fails to identify or explain
anything specific in connection with the defendant's writings
on the defendant's Web site that could be a source of potential
retaliation and harassment. Moreover, the communications
submitted as Exhibit A to Brooks's declaration do not
demonstrate that revealing the defendant's identity will place
the defendant or innocent parties at risk of retaliatory
physical or mental harm. As the defendant contends in
reply, these communications include “the profanity-laced
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
explanation in its opposition to the motion, that the
August 27, 2012 reader's comment is related “to a rivalry
betweenStoopidhousewives.com and another blogger, who is
now deceased.” It also appears that the defendant's failure to
mention the rival blogger's death on the defendant's Web site
caused readers to post “the profanity-laced” comments on the
defendant's Web site, such as the comments submitted on (a)
“2012/08/24 at 9:34 AM,” stating, in pertinent part, “all you
had to do was give Lynn a damn mention, the woman died you
heartless cunt”; and (b) “2012/08/27 at 10:18 PM,” stating, in
pertinent part, “Hey CUNT STOOPID, YOU FORGOT TO
ADD WHEN PUBLISHING MY COMMENT CUNT FACT
THAT ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS MENTION LYNN
HUDSON PASSING YOU STOOPID CUNT FACE COW!
YOU GOT HALF YOUR READERS FROM HER YOU
HEARTLESS CUNT!” Furthermore, an e-mail message,
contained in Exhibit A, dated “Feb 20, 2012 at 3:59 AM,”
sent to the defendant's Web site, from a reader who used
to support and promote the defendant's Web site, and who
appears to have been blocked from accessing the defendant's
Web site, does not contain any threats; rather, it expresses the
reader's disappointment about being blocked from accessing
the Web site. The comment dated “2012/09/24 at 5:30 PM,”
contained in Exhibit A, refers to “the ladies on NJ housewives
especially Kathy and Melissa,” and states “I believe someone
associated with the NJ franchise will be killed. Considering
3 of the NJ housewives are still friendly with Kim D. A
known drug trafficker. That's not a good look.” It is not clear
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 10 of 15

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-5, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
2012 WL 5899331
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5
what relevance, if any, the “2012/09/24” comment has to the
defendant's Web site or the defendant's writings, as it does not
appear to involve the defendant's Web site or refer to it in any
way.
2 In pertinent part, the August 27, 2012 comment
states “HOW THE FUCK IS WANTING YOU TO
MENTION LYNN's DEATH PROFANITY? Here
is a comment for you cunt! YOU DON'T WANT
TO LET HER POST IT, THERE ABOUT 50 of
us CUNT! You are going to get fucked with no
return.”
*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.
The defendant presented no evidence establishing a risk
of retaliatory physical or mental harm would exist if the
defendant's identity were to be revealed in this action. The
defendant does not identify, in the defendant's declaration
or by other evidence, any acts or omissions that the
defendant perceives might pose a risk of retaliatory physical
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
Web site when the defendant “began to receive abusive
communications wherein individuals were harassing me for
my contact information.” The defendant does not explain
why, as the defendant contends, the defendant “could be
exposed to physical and/or mental abuse at [the defendant's]
place of residence,” solely because the “individuals [have
been] harassing [the defendant] for [the defendant's] contact
information.” The defendant does not explain why or in
relation to what factual circumstances those “individuals”
have been “harassing” the defendant for the defendant's
contact information. The evidence before the Court does
not support the defendant's contention that the defendant or
an innocent party will be exposed to a risk of retaliatory
physical or mental harm if the defendant's identity is revealed
in this action, and this factor militates against granting the
defendant's request to proceed by using a pseudonym.
3. Whether Identification Presents Other Harm and the
Severity of That Harm
The defendant contends that harm other than “physical
and/or mental” would result from revealing the defendant's
identity in this action, namely, that “it would weaken
[the defendant's] First Amendment protections to publicly
anonymous speech.” However, the defendant's proceeding
in this litigation by using a pseudonym is not a necessary
condition for the defendant's publishing anonymously on
the Internet. The defendant does not explain how or why
revealing the defendant's identity in this action would hinder
the defendant's ability to publish anonymously on the Internet.
Furthermore, the defendant provides no authority for the
proposition that a party to a litigation is warranted in
proceeding under a pseudonym solely because it publishes
anonymously on the Internet, and the Court finds none.
The defendant remains free to publish anonymously on the
Internet. Therefore, this factor does not weigh in favor of
granting the defendant's request to proceed in this action by
using a pseudonym.
4. Whether the Defendant Is Particularly Vulnerable to
the Possible Harm of Disclosure
The defendant does not contend that any particular
vulnerability to the possible harm of disclosure exists, other
than the harm discussed above. Therefore, this factor does
not support granting the defendant's request to proceed in this
action by using a pseudonym.
5. Whether the Suit Is Challenging the Action of the
Government or Private Parties
*7 Usually, where plaintiffs are suing the government, “such
suits involve no injury to the Government's ‘reputation,’ “
whereas “the mere filing of a civil action against other private
parties may cause damage to their good names and reputation
and may also result in economic harm,” and courts find
that these consequences provide more justification for not
granting a plaintiff's request for anonymity in the private
parties' cases. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d at 713. Here, no
government entity is involved that would militate in favor
of granting the request to proceed by using a pseudonym,
and no particular reason exists that warrants the defendant in
proceeding under a pseudonym in this action.
6. Prejudice to the Plaintiff, Whether the Nature of the
Prejudice Differs at Different Stages of Litigation and
Whether Any Prejudice Can Be Mitigated by the Court
The plaintiff contends that it would be prejudiced if the
defendant is allowed to proceed using a pseudonym, because
it would impair the plaintiff's ability to investigate the
defendant's alleged infringement of the plaintiff's copyright
and limit its ability to conduct discovery severely, especially
to seek “discovery from third-party media companies
concerning their connection to, or financial support of, the
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 11 of 15

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-5, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
2012 WL 5899331
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6
individual who has been identified.” Although the defendant's
declaration states that the defendant has not entered into
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
limit or prevent the plaintiff from conducting its discovery
in the way the plaintiff wishes. Moreover, the plaintiff
may choose not to limit its discovery to the defendant's
relationships or agreements with and compensation or
financial benefits from media companies, since the scope of
discovery is very broad. See Maresco v. Evans Chemetics,
Div. of W.R. Grace & Co., 964 F.2d 106, 114 (2d
Cir.1992). The defendant's declaration that the defendant
“[has] never provided any third-party (company, individual,
or otherwise) with my name, address, or other identifying
information in connection with my operation, administration,
or authorship of www.stoopidhousewives .com other
than Domain–By–Proxy, LLC,” is undermined by the
defendant's statement that “a photo of myself was accessible
on www .stoopidhousewives.com until approximately
November 2011,” since the photograph is identifying
information pertinent to the defendant that was available to
the public prior to November 2011. Moreover, the defendant's
declaration that the defendant did not provide any third-
party with the defendant's name, address or other identifying
information in connection with the defendant's Web site does
not support the defendant's contention, in the defendant's
memorandum of law, that the plaintiff “would receive no
discovery since no third party ... has ever been exposed to [the
defendant's] given name or other identifying information.”
Many ways exist for a third-party to “be exposed” to the
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
to learn by conducting discovery based on the defendant's
identity, rather than the defendant's pseudonym.
*8 Since the parties are at the initial stage of the litigation,
the prejudice that would attend the plaintiff at this stage, if
the defendant is permitted to proceed by using a pseudonym,
would be significant and the defendant's suggestion that the
plaintiff conduct discovery by using a pseudonym, would
not mitigate the prejudice, as explained above. Significant
prejudice will also attend the plaintiff in the later stages
of the proceedings, including the trial, when factfinding
will depend, among other things, on the credibility of the
witnesses, and the defendant's use of a pseudonym would
not mitigate that prejudice. Thus, this factor does not favor
granting the defendant's request to proceed by using a
pseudonym.
7. Whether the Defendant's Identity Has Thus Far Been
Kept Confidential
The parties stipulated that the defendant's identity remains
for attorney's eyes only pending resolution of the instant
motion. See Docket Entry No. 14. However, despite the
parties' stipulation to keep the defendant's identity known to
the attorneys only, pending resolution of this motion, which
would militate in favor of granting the defendant's request to
proceed by using a pseudonym, the fact that the defendant's
photograph was available to the public on the defendant's Web
site until “approximately November 2011,” undermines the
notion that the defendant's identity has been kept confidential
thus far. Accordingly, it cannot be said that this factor weighs
in favor of granting the defendant's request to proceed by
using a pseudonym.
8. Whether the Public's Interest in Litigation Is Furthered
by Disclosure of the Defendant's Identity
The defendant failed to address, in its motion, the public's
interest in the litigation, namely its right of access to judicial
proceedings. See Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1067.
The public's interest in litigation and its right of access
to judicial proceedings is furthered by disclosure of the
defendant's identity, since nothing in the defendant's motion
suggests the contrary. Thus, this factor militates against
granting the defendant's request to proceed by using a
pseudonym.
9. Whether, Because of the Purely Legal Nature of the
Issues or Otherwise, an Atypically Weak Public Interest in
Knowing the Defendant's Identity Exists
“[W]here a lawsuit is brought solely against the government
and seeks to raise an abstract question of law that affects
many similarly situated individuals, the identities of the
particular parties bringing the suit may be largely irrelevant
to the public concern with the nature of the process.” Del
Rio, 241 F.R.D. at 158. On the other hand, “[p]rivate civil
suits, individually and certainly in the aggregate, do not
only advance the parties' private interests, but also further
the public's interest in enforcing legal and social norms”;
thus, where the litigation involves, not “abstract challenges to
public policies[,] but rather ... particular actions and incidents,
open proceedings nevertheless benefit the public as well as
the parties and also serve the judicial interest in accurate fact-
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 12 of 15

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-5, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
2012 WL 5899331
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7
finding and fair adjudication.” Id. at 159. Moreover, courts
are concerned that allowing a party to proceed anonymously
“could unfairly impede [the nonanonymous party's] ability to
impeach the ... credibility [of the party seeking to proceed
anonymously] through cross examination and introduction of
personal evidence at trial.” Id. (citation omitted).
*9 The defendant contends that “the public interest in [the
defendant's] identity is ‘atypically weak,’ “ because “the
issues in the case are of a purely legal nature (i.e., alleged
past copyright infringement).” However, the defendant's
contention is erroneous; this is not a case in which the
issues are of a purely legal nature, such as in the case
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
criminal abortion legislation). The “alleged past copyright
infringement” involves fact-finding specific to the litigants in
this action and open proceedings will benefit the public and
the litigants, as well as serve the judicial interest in accurate
fact-finding and fair adjudication. The fact-finding in this
case will necessarily involve the issue of witness credibility.
“[C]oncealing the name of a party could deprive a litigant and
the court of the chance that a yet unknown witness would,
upon learning that fact about the case, ... step forward with
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
by using a pseudonym.
10. Whether Alternative Mechanisms Exist for Protecting
the Confidentiality of the Party Seeking to Proceed by
Using a Pseudonym
Since the defendant did not establish that a valid basis exists
for protecting the defendant's identity at the outset, no need
exists to contemplate alternative mechanisms for protecting
the defendant's identity. The defendant did not articulate any
other factors relevant to this action that the Court should
consider in determining whether the defendant should p roc
eed by using a pseudonym, and the Court does not find that
any other factors particular to this action warrant granting the
defendant's request to proceed by using a pseudonym. The
defendant made no showing of good cause for a protective
order “precluding the parties' counsel from disclosing the
identity of the individual author and administrator of the
websitestoopidhousewives.com outside of their respective
law firms.”
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to proceed
under the fictitious name “Stoopidhousewives.com,” and
for a protective order, Docket Entry No. 8, is denied.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the
document, Docket Entry No. 1, and, thereafter, enter the
unsealed document on the docket sheet maintained for this
action.
SO ORDERED:
All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 5899331
End of Document © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 13 of 15

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-5
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Filings (3)
Title PDF Court Date Type
1. Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
NORTH JERSEY MEDIA GROUP INC., Plaintiff, v.
Marjorie ADAMS and John Doe Nos. 2-5, All d/b/a
Stoopidhousewives.com, Defendants.
2012 WL 7655724
S.D.N.Y. Dec. 04, 2012 Pleading
2. Memorandum of Plaintiff in Opposition to a
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
S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2012 Motion
3. Docket 1:12-CV-06152
North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. John Doe Nos. 1-5
— S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2012 Docket
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 14 of 15

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-5
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
History
There are no History results for this citation.
Case 6:26-cv-00511-GTS-MJK Document 6 Filed 04/01/26 Page 15 of 15