{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"Order to Proceed as Jane Doe","alternateName":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_DECISION___ORDER_ON_86.pdf","caption":"Order to Proceed as Jane Doe","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/603/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-23T20:05:52+00:00","description":"Order to Proceed as Jane Doe","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"603","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/603/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/603/index.md"},"name":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_DECISION___ORDER_ON_86","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\n\nNEW YORK COUNTY\nPRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA PERRY-BOND PART 35\nJustice\nee X INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nJANE DOE, MOTION DATE 10/23/2026\nPlaintiff,\nMOTION SEQ. NO. 001\n\n-V-\n\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC.,CHI PHI CHAPTER HOUSE\n\nASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC.,CHI PHI\n\nEDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA BETA HOUSE\n\nCORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA DELTA, DELTA DELTA\n\nDELTA SORORITY, ZAREEN ENTERPRISE DECISION + ORDER ON\nLLC,MATTHEW INGALLS, JOHNATHAN NEWELL, MOTION\nWINSTON LEE, GILLIO LOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT\n\nNORRIS, SCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE, JOHN\n\nDOE, JOHN DOES, and ORAZIO PETITO,\n\nDefendants.\n\npenne eee nee eneeenneeene XK\n\nThe following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1 through 85\nwere read on this motion to/for PROCEED USING PSEUDONYM\n\nUpon the foregoing documents, there being no opposition, and good cause having been\nshown, plaintiff's motion seeking to proceed in this action under the pseudonym of \u201cJane Doe\u201d is\ngranted.\n\nPermission to proceed in litigation using a pseudonym is not granted automatically, and\nthe Court must \u201cexercise its discretion to limit the public nature of judicial proceedings sparingly\nand then, only when unusual circumstances necessitate it\u201d (Twersky v Yeshiva Univ., 201 AD3d\n559, 559 [1st Dept 2022] quoting Anonymous v Anonymous, 27 AD3d 356, 361 [1st Dept 2006]).\nThe Court is required to balance the \u201cplaintiff's privacy interests against the presumption in favor\nof public disclosure and any prejudice to defendant[s]\u201d (see Doe v Yeshiva Univ., 195 AD3d 565,\n565 [1st Dept 2021]). Where a plaintiff's privacy interests outweigh the presumption in favor of\n\npublic disclosure, the use of a pseudonym is preferred over sealing the entire docket because a\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n1 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\ngrant of anonymity impacts the public\u2019s right to open proceedings far less than the closing of a\ncourtroom (see Doe v Doe, 189 AD3d 406, 407 [1st Dept 2020)).\n\nAside from the common law rules, New York has enacted a statutory exception to the\ngeneral rule of openness and disclosure by enacting Civil Rights Law \u00a7 50-b. That statute provides\nthat:\n\n\u201cthe identity of any victim of a sex offense as defined in article one hundred thirty\n\nor section 255.25, 255.26, or 255.26 of the penal law...shall be confidential. No\n\nreport, paper, picture, photograph, court file or other documents, in the custody or\n\npossession of any public officer or employee, which identifies such a victim shall\n\nbe made available for public inspection.\u201d\n\nOn this application, no defendant has opposed plaintiff proceeding using a pseudonym.\nNonetheless, the Court is still required to independently exercise its discretion in balancing\nplaintiff's privacy rights, the public\u2019s interest in open trials, and preventing prejudice to\ndefendants. In support of her application, plaintiff submitted an affirmation claiming she is a victim\nof sexual abuse, sexual assault, and rape and invoked the protections of Civil Rights Law \u00a7 50-b.\nPlaintiff further claims that being personally identified would result in \u201cretribution and retaliation\u201d\nagainst her, will hinder her social life and career, and will cause her family shame and to be placed\nin danger (see NYSCEF Doc. 4). Plaintiff further claims that she has experienced extreme anxiety,\ndepression, and insomnia due to the fear of being identified, and that proceeding anonymously will\nhelp her \u201cto remain safe and maintain a sound sense of mind.\u201d\n\nPutting aside the applicability of Civil Rights Law \u00a7 50-b, as no defendant has yet been\ncharged under any of the applicable sections of the penal code, the Court finds that plaintiff's\naffirmation, coupled with the lack of any opposition from defendants, provides sufficient cause to\n\nallow plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym.\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n2 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nParticularly instructive is the First Department\u2019s decision in N.S. v. Frankenhoff, 215\nA.D.3d 592 (1st Dept. 2023). In N.S., the plaintiff sued defendant for allegedly raping her. The\nFirst Department affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision allowing the plaintiff to proceed using a\npseudonym, finding \u201cthe presumption in favor of open trials and any potential prejudice to the\ndefendant was outweighed by plaintiff's privacy interest,\u201d particularly her concern that \u201cher\nteenaged child would be traumatized if he or his peers were to discover information about the\nalleged rape online\u201d (id. at 593). In this case, there are equally if not more compelling\ncircumstances to allow plaintiff to maintain anonymity, especially given the notoriety of the\nallegations and widespread reports of certain malicious actors\u2019 behavior in attempting to threaten\nand retaliate against anyone tangentially involved in this case.\n\nMoreover, the public\u2019s interest in open proceedings is better served by allowing plaintiff\nto proceed via pseudonym as opposed to sealing the entire docket and closing the courtroom, and\ndefendants have not demonstrated prejudice by allowing plaintiff to proceed by pseudonym, as\nthey have not even opposed this application (see, e.g. Doe v KIPP New York, Inc., 238 AD3d 447,\n448 [1st Dept 2025]). Therefore, plaintiff's application to proceed using a pseudonym is granted\n(see also Doe v Bloomberg L.P., 200 AD3d 410 [1st Dept 2021]).\n\nWhile the Court is cognizant that some members of the public have made it their mission\nto try and identify Jane Doe, and have likewise tried to use what they believe to be Jane Doe\u2019s\nidentity to harass and threaten certain individuals allegedly tied to her, the Court issues the\nfollowing words of caution: cyberstalking and engaging in or encouraging threats across state\nlines, whether it be of Jane Doe, any of the named defendants, or their attorneys, can be considered\n\na federal crime and perpetrators of those acts may be subjecting themselves to prosecution.\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n3 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nParticularly instructive is the First Department\u2019s decision in N.S. v. Frankenhoff, 215\nA.D.3d 592 (1st Dept. 2023). In N.S., the plaintiff sued defendant for allegedly raping her. The\nFirst Department affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision allowing the plaintiff to proceed using a\npseudonym, finding \u201cthe presumption in favor of open trials and any potential prejudice to the\ndefendant was outweighed by plaintiff's privacy interest,\u201d particularly her concern that \u201cher\nteenaged child would be traumatized if he or his peers were to discovery information about the\nalleged rape online\u201d (id. at 593). In this case, there are equally if not more compelling\ncircumstances to allow plaintiff to maintain anonymity, especially given the notoriety of the\nallegations and widespread reports of certain malicious actors\u2019 behavior in attempting to threaten\nand retaliate against anyone tangentially involved in this case.\n\nMoreover, the public\u2019s interest in open proceedings is better served by allowing plaintiff\nto proceed via pseudonym as opposed to sealing the entire docket and closing the courtroom, and\ndefendants have not demonstrated prejudice by allowing plaintiff to proceed by pseudonym, as\nthey have not even opposed this application (see, e.g. Doe v KIPP New York, Inc., 238 AD3d 447,\n448 [1st Dept 2025]). Therefore, plaintiff's application to proceed using a pseudonym is granted\n(see also Doe v Bloomberg L.P., 200 AD3d 410 [1st Dept 2021]).\n\nWhile the Court is cognizant that some members of the public have made it their mission\nto try and identify Jane Doe, and have likewise tried to use what they believe to be Jane Doe\u2019s\nidentity to harass and threaten certain individuals allegedly tied to her, the Court issues the\nfollowing words of caution: cyberstalking and engaging in or encouraging threats across state\nlines, whether it be of Jane Doe, any of the named defendants, or their attorneys, can be considered\n\na federal crime and perpetrators of those acts may be subjecting themselves to prosecution.\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n4 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 5 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nIndividuals who engage in the above-mentioned behavior can also be subjected to prosecution\nunder state law.\n\nWhile not expressly sought in her order to show cause, in the motion papers submitted\nplaintiff seeks an \u201cattorneys\u2019 eyes only\u201d designation as to plaintiff's sensitive personal\ninformation, including her date of birth, social security number, residential address, phone number,\nand e-mail address. Defendant Cornell University, Inc. (\u201cCornell\u201d) argues this designation should\nalso be broadened to non-parties who may fear coming forward with evidence for fear of retaliation\nand harassment. The Court believes this designation should likewise be extended to the\nindividually named defendants in this action. The Court welcomes the parties presenting a\nproposed stipulation, to be so ordered, providing all involved parties with some degree of\nprotection regarding their sensitive personal information. To the extent the parties believe a\nconference would be helpful in drafting a stipulation, the parties may contact the Court to request\nthat a conference be calendared.\n\nTo that end, and considering plaintiff is granted leave to proceed anonymously, the Court\nand the parties must determine the appropriate restrictions regarding disclosure of plaintiff's name\nand other information for purposes of discovery and investigation. The First Department has held\nthat \u201c[w]hile a defendant may be restrained from publishing a plaintiff's name who has been\ngranted anonymity\u201d an \u201corder enjoining [defendants] from disclosing plaintiffs identity to anyone\nother than [their] attorneys, insurers, and expert witnesses\u201d is overbroad (see N.S. v Frankenhoff,\n215 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept 2023]).\n\nIf this case proceeds to discovery or trial, and depending on the damages sought,\ndefendants may need to privately disclose plaintiff's name to a variety of different institutions or\n\nindividuals, including potential medical providers, employers, social workers, government\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 4 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n5 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nagencies, or potential witnesses. Therefore, the restraints imposed on defendants from disclosing\nplaintiffs identity in this case are designed to be narrowly tailored to allow defendants to engage\nin the necessary discovery and investigation to adequately defend this case. The restraints issued\ntoday may be considered a \u201cplaceholder\u201d and can be modified, reduced, or expanded as part of\nany future protective order applying in equal force to defendants and non-party witnesses. To that\nend, if any party believes the restrictions on the disclosure of plaintiffs identity should be reduced,\nexpanded, or otherwise modified, or expanded to protect other defendants\u2019 or non-party witnesses\u2019\npersonal identifying information, the parties may submit a stipulation or request a conference.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED, that plaintiff is permitted to proceed in this action using the pseudonym \u201cJane\nDoe\u201d instead of her legal name; and it is further\n\nORDERED that the caption in this action shall remain the same as the caption set forth in\nplaintiff's original complaint and proposed order to show cause (see NYSCEF Doc. 2); and it is\nfurther\n\nORDERED that the parties, their counsel, the parties\u2019 agents, and the New York County\nClerk\u2019s office shall refrain from publicly disclosing plaintiffs identity, and is further\n\nORDERED that all papers filed in this action, including pleadings, motions, judgments,\norders, decisions, notices, discovery demands and responses, letter correspondence, exhibits, or\nany other document relating to the action, shall refer to plaintiff by the pseudonym \u201cJane Doe\u201d and\nshall not be filed by anyone unless plaintiff's sensitive personal information, including her name,\ndate of birth, social security number, residential address, phone number, and e-mail address are\n\nomitted or redacted from those documents, and to the extent necessary, the original unredacted\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 5 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n6 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\ndocument shall be retained by the party who has filed the redacted document for an in-camera\ninspection by the Court; and it is further;\n\nORDERED that plaintiff shall disclose to defendants and their attorneys Jane Doe\u2019s\nidentity, to the extent they have not done so already; and it is further\n\nORDERED that defendants and their agents are permitted to disclose plaintiffs identity\nand pertinent identifying information privately for purposes of discovery and investigation to any\nthird-party doctor, social worker, medical/health care provider, governmental agency, employer,\ninsurer, or potential witness who has or may have knowledge related to the parties\u2019 claims or\ndefenses in this action, conditioned on the agreement to keep plaintiff's sensitive personal\nidentifying information confidential by the third-party being disclosed such information; and it is\nfurther\n\nORDERED that the parties may submit a proposed stipulation limiting, expanding, or\notherwise modifying the restraints and protections ordered herein, or, if unable to agree to the\nterms of a proposed stipulation, may request a conference with the court for the purposes of\ncrafting a more comprehensive protective order which expands protection against the disclosure\nof defendants\u2019 and certain non-party witnesses\u2019 sensitive personal identifying information; and it\nis further\n\nORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for plaintiff shall serve a copy of this\nDecision and Order, with notice of entry, on all appearing parties via NSYCEF and via first-class\nmail on all non-appearing parties at their last known address(es); and it is further\n\nORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for plaintiff shall serve a copy of this\nDecision and Order upon the Clerk of the Court in accordance with the procedures set forth in the\n\nProtocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 6 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n7 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nat the \u201cE-Filing\u201d page on the court\u2019s website) and the Clerk of the General Clerk\u2019s Office (60\nCentre Street, Room 119), who, upon service of such a copy of this Decision and Order, shall\nensure plaintiff's anonymity is maintained and shall cooperate with the parties and the Court to\nensure any future filings which may inadvertently disclose plaintiff's identity or sensitive personal\nidentifying information is expeditiously removed from the public record.\n\nThis constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.\n\nJo {22/26\nDATE\n\nHON. PHAEDRA PER\n\n-BOND, J.S.C.\nCHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION\nGRANTED [] DENIED GRANTED IN PART [ ] OTHER\nAPPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER\nCHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [ REFERENCE\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 7 of 7\n\nMotion No. 001\n\n8 of 8\n","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\n\nNEW YORK COUNTY\nPRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA PERRY-BOND PART 35\nJustice\nee X INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nJANE DOE, MOTION DATE 10/23/2026\nPlaintiff,\nMOTION SEQ. NO. 001\n\n-V-\n\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC.,CHI PHI CHAPTER HOUSE\n\nASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC.,CHI PHI\n\nEDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA BETA HOUSE\n\nCORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA DELTA, DELTA DELTA\n\nDELTA SORORITY, ZAREEN ENTERPRISE DECISION + ORDER ON\nLLC,MATTHEW INGALLS, JOHNATHAN NEWELL, MOTION\nWINSTON LEE, GILLIO LOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT\n\nNORRIS, SCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE, JOHN\n\nDOE, JOHN DOES, and ORAZIO PETITO,\n\nDefendants.\n\npenne eee nee eneeenneeene XK\n\nThe following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1 through 85\nwere read on this motion to/for PROCEED USING PSEUDONYM\n\nUpon the foregoing documents, there being no opposition, and good cause having been\nshown, plaintiff's motion seeking to proceed in this action under the pseudonym of \u201cJane Doe\u201d is\ngranted.\n\nPermission to proceed in litigation using a pseudonym is not granted automatically, and\nthe Court must \u201cexercise its discretion to limit the public nature of judicial proceedings sparingly\nand then, only when unusual circumstances necessitate it\u201d (Twersky v Yeshiva Univ., 201 AD3d\n559, 559 [1st Dept 2022] quoting Anonymous v Anonymous, 27 AD3d 356, 361 [1st Dept 2006]).\nThe Court is required to balance the \u201cplaintiff's privacy interests against the presumption in favor\nof public disclosure and any prejudice to defendant[s]\u201d (see Doe v Yeshiva Univ., 195 AD3d 565,\n565 [1st Dept 2021]). Where a plaintiff's privacy interests outweigh the presumption in favor of\n\npublic disclosure, the use of a pseudonym is preferred over sealing the entire docket because a\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n1 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\ngrant of anonymity impacts the public\u2019s right to open proceedings far less than the closing of a\ncourtroom (see Doe v Doe, 189 AD3d 406, 407 [1st Dept 2020)).\n\nAside from the common law rules, New York has enacted a statutory exception to the\ngeneral rule of openness and disclosure by enacting Civil Rights Law \u00a7 50-b. That statute provides\nthat:\n\n\u201cthe identity of any victim of a sex offense as defined in article one hundred thirty\n\nor section 255.25, 255.26, or 255.26 of the penal law...shall be confidential. No\n\nreport, paper, picture, photograph, court file or other documents, in the custody or\n\npossession of any public officer or employee, which identifies such a victim shall\n\nbe made available for public inspection.\u201d\n\nOn this application, no defendant has opposed plaintiff proceeding using a pseudonym.\nNonetheless, the Court is still required to independently exercise its discretion in balancing\nplaintiff's privacy rights, the public\u2019s interest in open trials, and preventing prejudice to\ndefendants. In support of her application, plaintiff submitted an affirmation claiming she is a victim\nof sexual abuse, sexual assault, and rape and invoked the protections of Civil Rights Law \u00a7 50-b.\nPlaintiff further claims that being personally identified would result in \u201cretribution and retaliation\u201d\nagainst her, will hinder her social life and career, and will cause her family shame and to be placed\nin danger (see NYSCEF Doc. 4). Plaintiff further claims that she has experienced extreme anxiety,\ndepression, and insomnia due to the fear of being identified, and that proceeding anonymously will\nhelp her \u201cto remain safe and maintain a sound sense of mind.\u201d\n\nPutting aside the applicability of Civil Rights Law \u00a7 50-b, as no defendant has yet been\ncharged under any of the applicable sections of the penal code, the Court finds that plaintiff's\naffirmation, coupled with the lack of any opposition from defendants, provides sufficient cause to\n\nallow plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym.\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n2 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nParticularly instructive is the First Department\u2019s decision in N.S. v. Frankenhoff, 215\nA.D.3d 592 (1st Dept. 2023). In N.S., the plaintiff sued defendant for allegedly raping her. The\nFirst Department affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision allowing the plaintiff to proceed using a\npseudonym, finding \u201cthe presumption in favor of open trials and any potential prejudice to the\ndefendant was outweighed by plaintiff's privacy interest,\u201d particularly her concern that \u201cher\nteenaged child would be traumatized if he or his peers were to discover information about the\nalleged rape online\u201d (id. at 593). In this case, there are equally if not more compelling\ncircumstances to allow plaintiff to maintain anonymity, especially given the notoriety of the\nallegations and widespread reports of certain malicious actors\u2019 behavior in attempting to threaten\nand retaliate against anyone tangentially involved in this case.\n\nMoreover, the public\u2019s interest in open proceedings is better served by allowing plaintiff\nto proceed via pseudonym as opposed to sealing the entire docket and closing the courtroom, and\ndefendants have not demonstrated prejudice by allowing plaintiff to proceed by pseudonym, as\nthey have not even opposed this application (see, e.g. Doe v KIPP New York, Inc., 238 AD3d 447,\n448 [1st Dept 2025]). Therefore, plaintiff's application to proceed using a pseudonym is granted\n(see also Doe v Bloomberg L.P., 200 AD3d 410 [1st Dept 2021]).\n\nWhile the Court is cognizant that some members of the public have made it their mission\nto try and identify Jane Doe, and have likewise tried to use what they believe to be Jane Doe\u2019s\nidentity to harass and threaten certain individuals allegedly tied to her, the Court issues the\nfollowing words of caution: cyberstalking and engaging in or encouraging threats across state\nlines, whether it be of Jane Doe, any of the named defendants, or their attorneys, can be considered\n\na federal crime and perpetrators of those acts may be subjecting themselves to prosecution.\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n3 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nParticularly instructive is the First Department\u2019s decision in N.S. v. Frankenhoff, 215\nA.D.3d 592 (1st Dept. 2023). In N.S., the plaintiff sued defendant for allegedly raping her. The\nFirst Department affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision allowing the plaintiff to proceed using a\npseudonym, finding \u201cthe presumption in favor of open trials and any potential prejudice to the\ndefendant was outweighed by plaintiff's privacy interest,\u201d particularly her concern that \u201cher\nteenaged child would be traumatized if he or his peers were to discovery information about the\nalleged rape online\u201d (id. at 593). In this case, there are equally if not more compelling\ncircumstances to allow plaintiff to maintain anonymity, especially given the notoriety of the\nallegations and widespread reports of certain malicious actors\u2019 behavior in attempting to threaten\nand retaliate against anyone tangentially involved in this case.\n\nMoreover, the public\u2019s interest in open proceedings is better served by allowing plaintiff\nto proceed via pseudonym as opposed to sealing the entire docket and closing the courtroom, and\ndefendants have not demonstrated prejudice by allowing plaintiff to proceed by pseudonym, as\nthey have not even opposed this application (see, e.g. Doe v KIPP New York, Inc., 238 AD3d 447,\n448 [1st Dept 2025]). Therefore, plaintiff's application to proceed using a pseudonym is granted\n(see also Doe v Bloomberg L.P., 200 AD3d 410 [1st Dept 2021]).\n\nWhile the Court is cognizant that some members of the public have made it their mission\nto try and identify Jane Doe, and have likewise tried to use what they believe to be Jane Doe\u2019s\nidentity to harass and threaten certain individuals allegedly tied to her, the Court issues the\nfollowing words of caution: cyberstalking and engaging in or encouraging threats across state\nlines, whether it be of Jane Doe, any of the named defendants, or their attorneys, can be considered\n\na federal crime and perpetrators of those acts may be subjecting themselves to prosecution.\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n4 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 5 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nIndividuals who engage in the above-mentioned behavior can also be subjected to prosecution\nunder state law.\n\nWhile not expressly sought in her order to show cause, in the motion papers submitted\nplaintiff seeks an \u201cattorneys\u2019 eyes only\u201d designation as to plaintiff's sensitive personal\ninformation, including her date of birth, social security number, residential address, phone number,\nand e-mail address. Defendant Cornell University, Inc. (\u201cCornell\u201d) argues this designation should\nalso be broadened to non-parties who may fear coming forward with evidence for fear of retaliation\nand harassment. The Court believes this designation should likewise be extended to the\nindividually named defendants in this action. The Court welcomes the parties presenting a\nproposed stipulation, to be so ordered, providing all involved parties with some degree of\nprotection regarding their sensitive personal information. To the extent the parties believe a\nconference would be helpful in drafting a stipulation, the parties may contact the Court to request\nthat a conference be calendared.\n\nTo that end, and considering plaintiff is granted leave to proceed anonymously, the Court\nand the parties must determine the appropriate restrictions regarding disclosure of plaintiff's name\nand other information for purposes of discovery and investigation. The First Department has held\nthat \u201c[w]hile a defendant may be restrained from publishing a plaintiff's name who has been\ngranted anonymity\u201d an \u201corder enjoining [defendants] from disclosing plaintiffs identity to anyone\nother than [their] attorneys, insurers, and expert witnesses\u201d is overbroad (see N.S. v Frankenhoff,\n215 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept 2023]).\n\nIf this case proceeds to discovery or trial, and depending on the damages sought,\ndefendants may need to privately disclose plaintiff's name to a variety of different institutions or\n\nindividuals, including potential medical providers, employers, social workers, government\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 4 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n5 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nagencies, or potential witnesses. Therefore, the restraints imposed on defendants from disclosing\nplaintiffs identity in this case are designed to be narrowly tailored to allow defendants to engage\nin the necessary discovery and investigation to adequately defend this case. The restraints issued\ntoday may be considered a \u201cplaceholder\u201d and can be modified, reduced, or expanded as part of\nany future protective order applying in equal force to defendants and non-party witnesses. To that\nend, if any party believes the restrictions on the disclosure of plaintiffs identity should be reduced,\nexpanded, or otherwise modified, or expanded to protect other defendants\u2019 or non-party witnesses\u2019\npersonal identifying information, the parties may submit a stipulation or request a conference.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED, that plaintiff is permitted to proceed in this action using the pseudonym \u201cJane\nDoe\u201d instead of her legal name; and it is further\n\nORDERED that the caption in this action shall remain the same as the caption set forth in\nplaintiff's original complaint and proposed order to show cause (see NYSCEF Doc. 2); and it is\nfurther\n\nORDERED that the parties, their counsel, the parties\u2019 agents, and the New York County\nClerk\u2019s office shall refrain from publicly disclosing plaintiffs identity, and is further\n\nORDERED that all papers filed in this action, including pleadings, motions, judgments,\norders, decisions, notices, discovery demands and responses, letter correspondence, exhibits, or\nany other document relating to the action, shall refer to plaintiff by the pseudonym \u201cJane Doe\u201d and\nshall not be filed by anyone unless plaintiff's sensitive personal information, including her name,\ndate of birth, social security number, residential address, phone number, and e-mail address are\n\nomitted or redacted from those documents, and to the extent necessary, the original unredacted\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 5 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n6 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\ndocument shall be retained by the party who has filed the redacted document for an in-camera\ninspection by the Court; and it is further;\n\nORDERED that plaintiff shall disclose to defendants and their attorneys Jane Doe\u2019s\nidentity, to the extent they have not done so already; and it is further\n\nORDERED that defendants and their agents are permitted to disclose plaintiffs identity\nand pertinent identifying information privately for purposes of discovery and investigation to any\nthird-party doctor, social worker, medical/health care provider, governmental agency, employer,\ninsurer, or potential witness who has or may have knowledge related to the parties\u2019 claims or\ndefenses in this action, conditioned on the agreement to keep plaintiff's sensitive personal\nidentifying information confidential by the third-party being disclosed such information; and it is\nfurther\n\nORDERED that the parties may submit a proposed stipulation limiting, expanding, or\notherwise modifying the restraints and protections ordered herein, or, if unable to agree to the\nterms of a proposed stipulation, may request a conference with the court for the purposes of\ncrafting a more comprehensive protective order which expands protection against the disclosure\nof defendants\u2019 and certain non-party witnesses\u2019 sensitive personal identifying information; and it\nis further\n\nORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for plaintiff shall serve a copy of this\nDecision and Order, with notice of entry, on all appearing parties via NSYCEF and via first-class\nmail on all non-appearing parties at their last known address(es); and it is further\n\nORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for plaintiff shall serve a copy of this\nDecision and Order upon the Clerk of the Court in accordance with the procedures set forth in the\n\nProtocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 6 of 7\nMotion No. 001\n\n7 of 8\n\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n\nat the \u201cE-Filing\u201d page on the court\u2019s website) and the Clerk of the General Clerk\u2019s Office (60\nCentre Street, Room 119), who, upon service of such a copy of this Decision and Order, shall\nensure plaintiff's anonymity is maintained and shall cooperate with the parties and the Court to\nensure any future filings which may inadvertently disclose plaintiff's identity or sensitive personal\nidentifying information is expeditiously removed from the public record.\n\nThis constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.\n\nJo {22/26\nDATE\n\nHON. PHAEDRA PER\n\n-BOND, J.S.C.\nCHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION\nGRANTED [] DENIED GRANTED IN PART [ ] OTHER\nAPPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER\nCHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [ REFERENCE\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 7 of 7\n\nMotion No. 001\n\n8 of 8\n","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/603/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/603"}