JOHN DOE v. SEAN COMBS SONY MUSIC HOLDINGS INC (2026)

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered February 21, 2025, which denied plaintiffs' separate motions to proceed anonymously, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently denied plaintiffs' motions to proceed anonymously.  Plaintiffs only assert general claims of public embarrassment and argue that the nature of the crime itself is sufficient to satisfy the standard to proceed anonymously.  However, while it is undisputed that plaintiffs' actions concern information of a highly sensitive and personal nature (see Doe v. KIPP N.Y., Inc., 238 AD3d 447, 448 [1st Dept 2025] ), their applications fail to provide any facts specific to each plaintiff that would allow a motion court to find that disclosure of their identities would result in particular harm (see Anonymous v. Lerner, 124 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2015];  see also Twersky v. Yeshiva Univ., 201 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2022];  cf.  Doe v. Yeshiva Univ., 195 AD3d 565, 565–566 [1st Dept 2021] ).  Rather, all three applications contain identical, generic claims of physical and psychological harm that are unsupported by any allegations in the complaints (see Twersky v. Yeshiva Univ., 201 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2022];  cf.  Doe v. Bloomberg L.P., 200 AD3d 410, 410 [1st Dept 2021] [“In addition to her own affidavit attesting to the psychological harm it would cause to disclose her name publicly, plaintiff submitted affidavits from her treating psychologist and psychiatrist, both of whom opined that forcing plaintiff to proceed with the litigation under her legal name would have severe consequences for her mental health”] ).  Plaintiffs' claims of public

embarrassment are insufficient, under the circumstances, to allow them to proceed anonymously (see Lerner, 124 AD3d at 488).