Supreme Court, New York County, November 13, 2020

Catafago Fini LLP, New York City (Jacques Catafago of counsel), for plaintiff.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, New York City (Sarah Prager and Joseph Salvo of counsel), for defendants.

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 AD3d 406, 410 [1st Dept 2019]; Anonymous v Lerner, 124 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2015]; Anonymous v Anonymous, 27 AD3d 356, 361 [1st Dept 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 AD3d at 487; Danco Labs. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 7-8 [1st Dept 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 AD3d at 488.) 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{**70 Misc 3d at 964} 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 Matter of Anonymous v New York State Dept. of Health, State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 65 AD3d 491, 494 [1st Dept 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 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 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 AD3d 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 AD3d at 410; Maxim Inc. v Feifer, 145 AD3d 516, 517-518 [1st Dept 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 CPLR 2101 (c).