JOHN DOE JOHN DOE AND CATHERINE WEBB v. MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MOUNT VERNON PUBLIC LIBRARY AND MOUNT VERNON PUBLIC LIBRARY EVANIA THOMPSON (2026)

This is an action to recover damages for negligence, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, assault, respondeat superior, negligent hiring and violations of the New York State Human Rights Law for gender discrimination, sexual harassment and hostile work environment. Plaintiffs move pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law (hereinafter "NYCRL) § 50-b  ¹ , Civil Practice Law and Rules (hereinafter "CPLR") 2101 (c), and applicable caselaw for the following relief:

1. Deeming the use of the pseudonyms "John Doe 1," "John Doe 2," and "John Doe 3" and the caption "John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Catherine Webb v. Oscar Davis, Jr., et. al." to be proper;

2. Permitting Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3 to proceed in this action under said pseudonyms throughout the litigation, including at trial;

3. Directing the parties, their attorneys, and agents to refrain from publishing or disclosing the true identities of John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3;

4. Directing that all papers filed in this action, and all judgments, orders, decisions, notices to the Court, and any other documents relating to the action refer to said Plaintiffs by the pseudonyms "John Doe 1," "John Doe 2," and "John Doe 3," and bear the caption "John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Catherine Webb v. Oscar Davis, Jr., et. al.";

5. Directing the County Clerk to enter and record all papers in the action under the title "John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Catherine Webb v. Oscar Davis, Jr., et. al."; and

6. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Defendants Davis and Thompson oppose the motion on the grounds that the current caption fails to comply with CPLR 2101 (c), plaintiffs failed to timely seek permission of the Court by order to show cause to commence an action using pseudonyms, plaintiffs failed to meet the standard used to determine if the use of pseudonyms is appropriate, and it would be fundamentally unfair to the defendants.

The following papers, filed with the New York State Courts Electronic Filing (hereinafter "NYSCEF") were considered by the Court:

PAPERS NYSCEF Doc. Nos.

Notice of Motion, Attorney Affirmation in Support, Affirmations by Plaintiffs and Exhibits 137-142

Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition and Memorandum of Law 162-163

Amended Plaintiffs' Affirmation, Plaintiffs' Attorney Reply Affirmation and Memorandum of Law 167-170, 185

For the reasons detailed herein, the plaintiff's motion is granted.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This action commenced by the filing of a summons and complaint on July 15, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1). Defendant, Mount Veron City School District (hereinafter "defendant MVC Schools"), interposed an answer with cross-claims on October 5, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 12), and defendants Oscar Davis, Jr. Board of Trustees of the Mount Vernon Public Library, Mount Vernon Public Library and Evania Thompson interposed an answer with cross-claims on November 4, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18)² .

The Court notes that this case has been pending for six (6) years and has been zealously litigated by both sides. On October 18, 2021 the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the defendants' answer (NYSCEF Doc. No. 30), and by letter dated October 20, 2021, plaintiffs withdrew that motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 38). On March 15, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to amend the verified complaint (NYSCEF Doc. No. 48) that was opposed by the defendants (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 55-56). By Decision and Order dated July 14, 2022, this Court (Murphy, J.) granted plaintiffs' motion. On May 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the answer of defendant Mount Vernon Public Library (NYSCEF Doc. No. 92). On May 24, 2024 plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the answers of defendant Board of Trustees of the Mount Vernon Public Library and Mount Vernon Public Library (NYSCEF Doc. No. 99). Both motions also sought an order of the Court compelling defendants to produce additional witnesses for depositions. By Decision and Order dated September 25, 2024, this Court (Murphy, J.) consolidated the motions for decisions and denied them (NYSCEF Doc. No. 118). The instant motion was filed on December 18, 2025, and a stipulation was executed extending the time for responses (NYSCEF Doc. No. 143).

Additionally, on February 11, 2026, defendants Board of Trustees of the Mount Vernon Public Library and the Mount Vernon Public Library (hereinafter "Library defendants") filed a cross-motion seeking further depositions of the plaintiffs (Motion Seq. 6, NYSCEF Doc. No. 149). By Order to Show Cause dated February 16, 2025, the plaintiffs sought to have the Court hold the instant motion (Motion Seq. No. 5) in abeyance and to have an evidentiary hearing regarding the affirmations and amended affirmations submitted by plaintiffs in support of this motion (Motion Seq. No. 7, NYSCEF Doc. No. 176).

On February 26, 2026, all parties appeared before this Court (Rivera, J.) for oral arguments on motion sequence numbers 6 and 7. After extensive oral arguments by all sides, the Court granted the library defendants' motion seeking additional depositions of plaintiffs (John Doe 1 & 2), denied any sanctions or costs against plaintiffs' attorney, and denied defendants Davis and Thompsons order to show cause seeking an evidentiary hearing regarding the affirmations and amended affirmations submitted by plaintiffs in support of this motion. The Court directed plaintiffs' counsel to submit a written order with a copy of the transcript for the Court to "so-order" (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 190-192). Thus, only motion sequence number 5 is addressed herein.

ANALYSIS

CPLR 2101 (c) requires that a summons and complaint shall include the names of all parties (emphasis added). The reasoning for this requirement relates to basic due process rights (Coe v. LaGuardia Airport Hotel Assoc., 134 Misc 2d 579 [NY County, 1987]). However, Courts have discretion in granting requests to proceed in an action under pseudonyms (Doe v. Khandker, et al, 221 AD3d 782 [2nd Dept, 2023]; Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F3d 185 [2nd Cir, 2008]. " 'In determining whether to grant a plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously, the court must use its discretion in balancing plaintiff's privacy interest against the presumption in favor of open trials and against any potential prejudice to defendants' " (Doe v. Khandker citing Roe v Harborfields Cent. Sch. Dist. [internal citations omitted]).

In Doe v. Khandker, the Second Department set forth a five-prong test to assist the Courts in making its determinations. The factors are: 1) whether the plaintiff is challenging a 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 the justice system.

Applying these factors to the case at bar, the Court finds that the plaintiffs John Doe 1, 2 and 3 may proceed anonymously. This lawsuit is of a sensitive nature alleging various forms of unwanted sexual assault and battery by defendant Davis, who was their supervisor in the Mount Vernon Public Library. Plaintiffs John Does 1-3 each submitted affirmations detailing the reasons they seek to remain anonymous. They each claim that since the allegations involve highly sensitive and personal matters related to an alleged sexual assault, disclosure of their identity would compound their trauma, expose them to potential retaliation, stigma and further emotional harm in their community (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 142, 167-168).

The Court agrees that revealing the names of plaintiffs John Doe 1-3 would compound their trauma and may result in potential retaliation, stigma and harm in their respective communities. This case has been pending for six years and has been zealously litigated by all parties. Defendants have conceded that they know John Does 1-3's real identity and that depositions of these plaintiffs have already taken place. Thus, there is absolutely no prejudice to the defendants by allowing plaintiffs John Doe 1-3 to proceed anonymously. While the Court is aware of the presumption of open judicial proceedings, this presumption is not absolute. "Courts retain discretion to permit litigants to proceed pseudonymously when substantial privacy results outweigh the public interest in disclosure" (Doe v. BBH LLC., et al., 87 Misc 3d 1222[A], 2025 NY Slip. Op. 5166 [U][NY Cty. Oct. 1, 2025]; Doe v. New York Univ., 6 Misc 3d 866 [Sup Ct, NY Cty, Dec. 8, 2004]).

Defendants posit that since plaintiffs failed to file an order to show cause simultaneously with the filing of the summons and complaint seeking judicial permission to use pseudonyms in the captions, the instant motion must be denied. However, defendants' arguments are belatedly disingenuous. Defendants failed to raise this opposition when they filed an answer (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18). Nor did they file their own motions during the preceding six years seeking an order compelling plaintiffs to use their real names in the caption. Most significantly, since defendants already know plaintiffs' real identities and have ardently litigated this case for six years, they have not and will not suffer any prejudice by allowing plaintiffs to continue to pursue this litigation anonymously. As the record shows, defendants have not been hampered in their ability to investigate, prepare and present their defense (Doe v. New York Univ., 6 Misc 3d 866 [Sup Ct, NY Cty, Dec. 8, 2004]). Consequently, defendants' insistence with strict compliance of CPLR 2101 (c) at this juncture is unpersuasive and disingenuous.

The court has considered the parties' remaining contentions, despite the absence of any specific reference thereto, and finds them to be without merit or rendered moot by certain aspects of this decision and order.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs motion seeking an order allowing the use of the pseudonyms "John Doe 1," "John Doe 2," and "John Doe 3" and the caption "John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Catherine Webb v. Oscar Davis, Jr., et. al." to be proper is GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs motion seeking an order allowing plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3 to proceed in this action under said pseudonyms throughout the litigation, including at trial, is GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs motion seeking an order directing the parties, their attorneys, and agents to refrain from publishing or disclosing the true identities of John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3 is GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs motion seeking an order directing that all papers filed in this action, and all judgments, orders, decisions, notices to the Court, and any other documents relating to the action refer to said plaintiffs by the pseudonyms "John Doe 1," "John Doe 2," and "John Doe 3," and bear the caption "John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Catherine Webb v. Oscar Davis, Jr., et. al." is GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs motion seeking an order directing the County Clerk to enter and record all papers in the action under the title "John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Catherine Webb v. Oscar Davis, Jr., et. al." is GRANTED.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

Dated: May 21, 2026

White Plains, New York

E N T E R:

HON. WALTER RIVERA, J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Plaintiffs' reliance on NYCPL § 50-b is inappropriate because this law applies to criminal cases involving specifically designated sex offenses and is inapplicable to civil litigation.

2.   Initially, defendants Oscar Davis, Jr. Board of Trustees of the Mount Vernon Public Library, Mount Vernon Public Library and Evania Thompson were all represented by one attorney. However, in 2022, defendants Davis and Thompson remained with their original attorney while defendants Board of Trustees of the Mount Vernon Public Library and the Mount Vernon Public Library retained their own attorneys.

Walter Rivera, J.