The following papers numbered EF 2-12, 17 read on this Order to Show Cause by the plaintiff for an order allowing her to maintain this action under a pseudonym.

Upon the foregoing papers this Order to Show Cause by the plaintiff for an order allowing her to maintain this action under a pseudonym is decided as follows:

Plaintiff alleges that she was the victim of sexual assault by her manager, defendant Joey Chong, at the holiday party of her company, defendant JAS Forwarding (USA) Inc. on December 13, 2024. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for, inter alia, violation of the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Act, the New York State and City Human Rights [*2]Law, sexual assault, sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff now brings this application for permission to proceed under a pseudonym since, she argues, this matter involves information of a sensitive and highly personal nature. Plaintiff asserts that she wishes to shield her identity from the stigma associated with sexual abuse. Plaintiff also contends that the defendant will not be prejudiced were she to proceed in this case via a pseudonym. Defendants oppose the application on the ground that plaintiff has failed to satisfy the high standard required for a party to proceed in a legal action as a "Jane Doe."

Initially, the court notes that plaintiff's reliance on Civil Rights Law § 50-b is misplaced. Civil Rights Law § 50-b was enacted to protect the disclosure of the identity of a victim of sex crimes to ensure the victim's cooperation in criminal investigations or prosecutions. (Doe v Kidd, 19 Misc 3d 782, 786-787 [Sup Ct, New York County 2008].) There has been no underlying criminal proceeding or conviction involving a sex crime pursuant to the New York Penal Law in this case. (see Doe v Good Samaritan Hosp., 65 Misc 3d 987, 990 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2019].) The statute does not require that anonymity be granted to an alleged victim of a sex offense who commences a civil lawsuit. (Doe v Good Samaritan Hosp., 65 Misc 3d at 990.)

The court can in its discretion, though, allow a litigant to proceed anonymously. The CPLR requires that the names of all parties to an action appear in the caption. (CPLR 2101[c].) Indeed, the court must protect the due process rights of the accused, since it may be unfair and prejudicial to allow the plaintiff to accuse defendants who are publicly identified, while shielding the plaintiff from any public scrutiny. (HCVAWCR-Doe v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of NY, 68 Misc 3d 1215[A] [Sup Ct, Westchester County 2020].) An open judicial proceeding serves to provide the public "with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its fairness" and serves to "ensure that [the proceedings] are conducted efficiently, honestly and fairly." (Danco Labs. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 7 [1st Dept 2000].) The right of the public, and the press, to access judicial proceedings is, however, not absolute or unfettered, and involves judicial discretion. (Anonymous v Lerner, 124 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2015].) Moreover, while it is true that "the primary function of a pleading is to apprise an adverse party of the pleader's claim," the same does not necessarily apply to a pleader's name. (Cole v Mandell Food Stores, 93 NY2d 34, 40 [1999].)

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. (Doe v Khandker, 221 AD3d 782, 782 [2d Dept 2023]; Anonymous v Lerner, 124 AD3d at 487; see also Twersky v Yeshiva Univ., 201 AD3d 559, 559-560 [1st Dept 2022].) The court will consider the following factors in determining whether to allow the plaintiff to appear under a pseudonym: 1) whether the plaintiff is challenging governmental activity or an individual's actions, 2) whether the plaintiff's action requires disclosure of information of the utmost intimacy, 3) whether identification would put the plaintiff [or innocent third-parties] at risk of suffering physical or mental injury, 4) whether the defendant would be prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to proceed anonymously, and 5) the public interest in guaranteeing open access to proceedings without denying litigants access to the justice system. (Roe v Harborfields Cent. Sch. Dist., 212 AD3d 853, 855 [2d Dept 2023]; PB-7 Doe v Amherst Cent. Sch. Dist., 196 AD3d 9, 13 [4th Dept 2021].)

At bar, there is little doubt that this case involves information of a personal and highly [*3]sensitive nature. Plaintiff alleges in her affirmation that she was sexually assaulted by her supervisor during her company's annual holiday party. Plaintiff avers that what happened to her was "devastating and humiliating." Plaintiff states that she fears that if the details of the case were to be made public, it would bring shame to herself and her family. She states that she has a family at home and does not want "what happened to me to affect them any further." Such averments are sufficient to warrant the granting of plaintiff's application to proceed under a pseudonym. The reputation of victims of sexual crimes are often put into question, which also supports plaintiff proceeding anonymously.

There is also the possibility that the revelation of plaintiff's identity will affect her ability to find employment in her field in the future. Plaintiff avers that the freighting industry where she works is a tightknit community, and her immediate area does not have an abundance of similar opportunities available. She states that she worries that she will be turned away from other companies if they discovered her identity in connection to this action.

Further, the court finds that the defendants will not be prejudiced simply by having the plaintiff proceed under a psuedonym. This is especially so since the defendants are already aware of the plaintiff's identity. (see Roe v Harborfields Cent. School Dist., 212 AD3d at 855-856.) There will be no impediment in defendants' ability to defend this case.

Additionally, the court notes that plaintiff does not seek to seal the records in this case or that public access be denied. Indeed, the remedy sought herein a far less drastic one than the sealing of a court file. (see Doe v New York Univ., 6 Misc 3d 866, 878 [Sup Ct, New York County 2004].) Thus, inasmuch as the file is not being sealed, the interest of the public in open court proceedings is preserved since the file will only be missing plaintiff's name. (see PB-7 Doe v Amherst Cent. Sch. Dist., 196 AD3d at 14.)

Accordingly, this Order to Show Cause by the plaintiff is granted to the extent that it is

ORDERED that plaintiff is permitted to proceed in this case anonymously by using the pseudonym "Jane Doe" in all publicly filed documents, rather than in plaintiff's own name; and it is further

ORDERED, that the caption shall remain as follows:

ORDERED that the plaintiff's identity may be disclosed to the defendants, counsel for the defendants, experts and third party witnesses for the sole purpose of obtaining discovery, and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties are otherwise enjoined from sharing plaintiff's name or identity.