DECISION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff moves to prosecute this action using pseudonymous initials, instead of her name. She does not request the sealing of any documents, but requests only to maintain the action anonymously. She supports her motion with her verified complaint. II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY The court will limit the public nature of judicial proceedings only when unusual circumstances require such a limitation. Wilder v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., 175 A.D.3d 406, 410 (1st Dep’t 2019); Anonymous v. Lerner, 124 A.D.3d 487, 487 (1st Dep’t 2015); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 27 A.D.3d 356, 361 (1st Dep’t 2006). Plaintiff’s request to maintain her action anonymously requires the court to balance her privacy interest against the presumption favoring open trials and against any prejudice to defendants. Anonymous v. Lerner, 124 A.D.3d at 487; Danco Labs. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 A.D.2d 1, 7-8 (1st Dep’t 2000). In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant maintains that plaintiff fails to show the privacy interest justifying her request and that redacting her name from the litigation documents would create unnecessary, excessive costs. In reply, plaintiff attests that she seeks to proceed anonymously to protect her minor child from unnecessary bullying and embarrassment. Although plaintiff disagrees that redaction costs will be excessive, she is willing to bear any additional costs. The complaint, however, does not even refer to her minor child. Its single claim of legal malpractice during a divorce action alleges that defendants negligently used a forensic accountant’s expert report causing plaintiff damages of approximately $3,000,000. Plaintiff does not explain how litigation of this issue will cause her or her daughter public humiliation and embarrassment, which in any event are insufficient grounds to allow plaintiff to proceed anonymously. Anonymous v. Lerner, 124 A.D.3d at 487. Plaintiff’s daughter, her daughter’s friends, and their families are likely already aware of the matrimonial dispute, further reducing the possibility that this action now will cause bullying and embarrassment. While plaintiff claims that sensitive personal details were involved in the underlying matrimonial action, the documents in the matrimonial action remain under seal. To the extent that those details may resurface in this action, they may be subject to redaction or a confidentiality order. See Anonymous v. New York State Dept. of Health, State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 65 A.D.3d 491, 494 (1st Dep’t 2009). Finally, plaintiff’s offer of the same protection of anonymity to defendant attorneys is an empty promise, since their identities are ascertainable in the matrimonial action’s reported decisions. See F.L. v. J.M., 173 A.D.3d 428 (1st Dep’t 2019). Thus, granting the relief plaintiff requests would prejudice defendants by allowing her to damage defendants’ professional reputation while protecting her own. Anonymous v. Lerner, 124 A.D.3d at 487. III. CONCLUSION In sum, plaintiff fails to show any substantial privacy interest outweighing the presumption of open judicial proceedings. Wilder v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., 175 A.D.3d at 410; Maxim Inc. v. Feifer, 145 A.D.3d 516, 51718 (1st Dep’t 2016). Since the grounds for plaintiff’s motion to maintain this action anonymously are unfounded, the court denies her motion and vacates the order temporarily allowing an anonymous caption. If plaintiff opts to proceed, she shall file a complaint that states the names of all parties, as required by C.P.L.R. §2101(c). Dated: November 13, 2020
