Apropos the “cat out of the bag” objection to sealing or pseudonymity, I thought I’d note last month’s P.F. v. M.B. (by Queens County, N.Y. judge Scott Dunn), which offers an example of the contrary approach. I’m not saying the P.F. result is correct, but I thought it worth noting:
For a period of approximately one year, Plaintiff and Defendant M.B. allegedly were engaged in a serious romantic relationship while Defendant M.B. was married to … Defendant Calcetas …. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants, in concert or one at the direction of the other, and without Plaintiff’s consent, disseminated intimate photographs and videos of Plaintiff to Plaintiff’s mother, business associates, and to a third party who had previously agreed to purchase Plaintiff’s business. Defendants allegedly also used social media and emails to message and threaten Plaintiff, all of which allegedly caused damage to Plaintiff….
Plaintiff had sought pseudonymity from when she filed the case, in March 2023, and got it in August 2023; defendant M.B. had been named in the filings throughout that time. Then in April 2025, defendant counterclaimed, alleging unlawful disclosure of his intimate images, as well as “battery through poisoning/non-consensual drugging.” And in July 2025, defendant moved to be pseudonymized in the file. No problem, said the court, in part because the pseudonymization would only be for future filings:
Defendant M.B.’s counterclaims sounding in dissemination of “revenge porn” to the public relates to private individuals not governmental activity. Thus, the Court finds that the public interest in guaranteeing open access to proceedings will not be negatively affected by allowing Defendant M.B. to proceed in this action using a using a pseudonym…. [And] the content of the allegations here involving Defendant M.B. “is of the utmost intimacy” and “revenge porn.” …
While it is true that Defendant M.B. has participated in this public action for more than two years before seeking a pseudonym, such fact does not preclude a finding that Defendant M.B. would suffer additional or exacerbated physical and mental injuries if required to continue litigating this action without a pseudonym. Indeed, Defendant M.B. avers in his affidavit that he seeks Court intervention to “prevent further trauma” and that “Plaintiff’s actions have caused [him] to suffer nightmares, loss of sleep, and required [him] to undergo therapy.” Defendant M.B. further avers that continued use of his name will reasonably increase the likelihood that others will become aware of these matters, worsen his humiliation, and cause him to be revictimized.
Given that Defendant M.B. in reply clarifies that he does not seek retroactive relief but merely seeks that going forward he be allowed to use a pseudonym (and have the Clerk change the docket information to reflect him as “M.B.”), the Court finds this factor also tilts towards granting the limited relief requested….
The post Cat out of the Bag? Just Shove It Back in! appeared first on Reason.com.
