*1 Plaintiff alleges that defendants, a health care clinic, hospital and healthcare network, are responsible for the improper public disclosure of certain protected patient health information,*2
including, among other things, plaintiff’s HIV status, history of STDs, history of sexual abuse and/or assault, and use of treatment-related prescription drugs. Plaintiff instituted this action by summons with notice for the purpose of obtaining certain relief from defendants. By order to show cause, dated September 8, 2017, plaintiff now seeks leave to file a complaint in which he may proceed anonymously, under a pseudonym, rather than in his legal name, and, further, to seal from public access all court records in this action. Defendants oppose the motion.The determination of whether to allow a plaintiff to proceed anonymously requires the court to “use its discretion in balancing plaintiff’s privacy interest against the presumption in favor of open trials and against any potential prejudice to defendant” (Anonymous v. Lerner, 124 AD3d 487, citing Stevens v. Brown, 2012 NY Misc LEXIS 3340, 2012 NY Slip Op 31823[U], *8-9 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012], citing Doe v. Szul Jewelry, Inc., 2008 NY Misc LEXIS 8733, 2008 NY Slip Op 31382[U], *11 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]). Thus, the court considers the following factors:[1] Whether the justification asserted…is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; [2] whether the party seeking anonymity has an illegitimate ulterior motive; [3] the extent to which the identity of the litigant has been kept confidential; [4] whether identification poses a risk of mental or physical harm, harassment, ridicule, or personal embarrassment; [5] whether the case involves information of the utmost intimacy; [6] whether the action is against a governmental or private entity; [7] the magnitude of the public interest in maintaining confidentiality or knowing the party’s identity; [8] whether revealing the identity of the party will dissuade the party from bringing the lawsuit; [9] whether the opposition to anonymity has an illegitimate basis; [and] [10] [] whether the other side will be prejudiced by use of the pseudonym.(Szul, id. at 16-17).This court’s weighing of these factors in this case supports a determination allowing plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym. This action is centered on a claim of improper disclosure of patient health information allegedly entitled to confidentiality under state and federal law — and thus involves a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature. The disclosure of this particular type of patient health information could lead to social stigmatization — and, as such, plaintiff’s identification would pose a substantial risk of undue personal embarrassment. The crux of the
