From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ROE v. GENERAL HOSPITAL COR. DBA

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court. Suffolk, SS
May 19, 2011
No. 11-991-BLS1 (Mass. Cmmw. May. 19, 2011)

Summary

In Roe v. General Hospital Corp., Civil Action No. 11–991–BLS1, 2011 WL 2342737, at *1 (Mass.Super.Ct. May 19, 2011) (Lauriat, J.), the court stated that the proponent bears the burden of demonstrating the need to proceed anonymously, and that relief will be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

Summary of this case from Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Swarn Sharing Hash File AE340D0560129AFEE8D78CE07F2394C7 B5BC9C05

Opinion

No. 11-991-BLS1.

May 19, 2011.


ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM


In this action for declaratory judgment and breach of privacy, plaintiff "Leslie Roe MD", seeks leave to proceed using a pseudonym, arguing that the disclosure of "her" true name will cause stigma, loss of prestige, and loss of income. She also contends that the alleged injury claimed here will likely re-occur, and that public policy favors anonymity.

In determining whether a litigant may proceed anonymously, a court must balance the litigant's substantial right to privacy with the constitutionally embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. MacInnes v. Cigna Group Ins. Co. of America, 379 F. Supp. 2d 89, 90 (D. Mass. 2005). The burden is on the proponent to demonstrate the need for confidentiality, id.; relief will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Doe v. Bell Atl. Business Sys., Inc., 162 F.R.D. 418, 422 (D. Mass. 1995). See also Doe v. United Servs. Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (and cases cited); Moe v. Secretary of Admin. Fin., 417 Mass. 629 n. 1 (1981). "Economic harm or mere embarrassment are not sufficient to override the strong public interest in disclosure." Bell Atl., 162 F.R.D. at 420; United Servs., 123 F.R.D. at 439 n. 1 ("[c]ourts should not permit parties to proceed pseudonymously just to protect the parties' professional or economic life").

The plaintiff has advanced no reason to support her claim other than possible professional and economic harm. Therefore, plaintiff Leslie Roe MD's Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym is DENIED . Any Protected Health Information covered under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") will be kept confidential, and the court will consider and enter an appropriate Confidentiality Order to that effect.


Summaries of

ROE v. GENERAL HOSPITAL COR. DBA

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court. Suffolk, SS
May 19, 2011
No. 11-991-BLS1 (Mass. Cmmw. May. 19, 2011)

In Roe v. General Hospital Corp., Civil Action No. 11–991–BLS1, 2011 WL 2342737, at *1 (Mass.Super.Ct. May 19, 2011) (Lauriat, J.), the court stated that the proponent bears the burden of demonstrating the need to proceed anonymously, and that relief will be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

Summary of this case from Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Swarn Sharing Hash File AE340D0560129AFEE8D78CE07F2394C7 B5BC9C05
Case details for

ROE v. GENERAL HOSPITAL COR. DBA

Case Details

Full title:LESLIE ROE MD v. THE GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION DBA MASSACHUSETTS…

Court:Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court. Suffolk, SS

Date published: May 19, 2011

Citations

No. 11-991-BLS1 (Mass. Cmmw. May. 19, 2011)

Citing Cases

Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Swarn Sharing Hash File AE340D0560129AFEE8D78CE07F2394C7 B5BC9C05

While there is no case law directly on point in the First Circuit, the Superior Court of Massachusetts has…