Be v. Comcast Corporation

S.D. New York

Be v. Comcast Corporation

DecidedJanuary 27, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-08571

StatusUnknown

This text of Be v. Comcast Corporation (Be v. Comcast Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Be v. Comcast Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : SU BE, : : Plaintiff, : : 20-CV-8571 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER COMCAST CORPORATION and MAGELLAN : HEALTH SERVICES, INC., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

Pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties.” Plaintiff is currently using what the Court understands to be an abbreviation of her name as a pseudonym rather than her name. See Dkt. 1 ¶ 9. “[W]hen 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.” Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). There is a presumption that a plaintiff will proceed under her own name. United States v. Pilcher, 950 F.3d 39, 45 (2d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (“In Sealed Plaintiff, we held that pseudonyms are the exception and not the rule, and in order to receive the protections of anonymity, a party must make a case rebutting that presumption.”). By February 2, 2021, Plaintiff shall file a letter, no more than five pages in length, explaining why the presumption of disclosure is overcome here and addressing Sealed Plaintiff and the factors it identified, its progeny, and any other relevant authority. 537 F.3d at 189-90; see Pilcher, 950 F.3d at 42. Plaintiff should also explain why reference to Su Be’s minor child, So Be, by a pseudonym would not be sufficient to protect that child’s privacy interests. If one or more Defendants wish to file a letter, no more than five pages in length, responding to Plaintiff’s letter, they may do so by February 9, 2021. SO ORDERED. Wa Dated: January 25, 2021 of TB New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : SU BE, : : Plaintiff, : : 20-CV-8571 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER COMCAST CORPORATION and MAGELLAN : HEALTH SERVICES, INC., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

Pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties.” Plaintiff is currently using what the Court understands to be an abbreviation of her name as a pseudonym rather than her name. See Dkt. 1 ¶ 9. “[W]hen 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.” Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). There is a presumption that a plaintiff will proceed under her own name. United States v. Pilcher, 950 F.3d 39, 45 (2d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (“In Sealed Plaintiff, we held that pseudonyms are the exception and not the rule, and in order to receive the protections of anonymity, a party must make a case rebutting that presumption.”). By February 2, 2021, Plaintiff shall file a letter, no more than five pages in length, explaining why the presumption of disclosure is overcome here and addressing Sealed Plaintiff and the factors it identified, its progeny, and any other relevant authority. 537 F.3d at 189-90; see Pilcher, 950 F.3d at 42. Plaintiff should also explain why reference to Su Be’s minor child, So Be, by a pseudonym would not be sufficient to protect that child’s privacy interests. If one or more Defendants wish to file a letter, no more than five pages in length, responding to Plaintiff’s letter, they may do so by February 9, 2021. SO ORDERED. Wa Dated: January 25, 2021 of TB New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Be v. Comcast Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/be-v-comcast-corporation-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack