No pseudonym in case challenging denial of gun rights based on alleged mental health issues

From PD v. Sullivandecided last month by Judge Nelson Román (SDNY):

The plaintiff seeks to proceed anonymously because the action involves “matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature, namely medical and mental health records and information.” …There is no doubt that this case concerns matters of a very sensitive and personal nature – medical and mental health information undoubtedly is. Additionally, the plaintiff is suing the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health in his official capacity and is therefore suing the government rather than a private entity. Furthermore, there is little or no prejudice to the defendant since she did not oppose the plaintiff's request and the plaintiff indicated that he would give his name to the defendant. Finally, the name and identity of the applicant have remained confidential until now.

(On the other hand, however) Plaintiff argues that his identification “presents a risk of physical and mental retaliation to Plaintiff and, more importantly, to innocent third parties, including members of his family”… this risk of harm is vague and speculative. . The plaintiff highlights the combined “stigma” of mental health and Second Amendment rights, but fails to elaborate or provide any evidence of this alleged stigma. The plaintiff does not specify the nature of these potential damages either. Plaintiff asserts that this is particularly true “in the hostile context of New York State against the Second Amendment,” and the Court is not entirely sure what Plaintiff means….

“…(T)here is a general presumption that the identity of the parties is public information.” As Plaintiff implies, the Second Amendment has fostered continued debate and discussion among the public in recent years. Accordingly, there will likely be significant interest in plaintiff's suit challenging provisions of the New York State Mental Hygiene Law (“NY MHL”) as unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments .

Certainly, the identity of individuals who solely sue the government and raise an abstract question of law may be largely irrelevant to public concern about the nature of the process. However, even though the plaintiff's claims challenge the constitutionality of a law – certainly an abstract question of law – the plaintiff also asserts the constitutionality of the law in light of his particular situation. Plaintiff alleges that NY MHL § 9.39 is unconstitutional.”as applied to the plaintiff“Accordingly, although the action appears to involve purely legal issues, factual disputes may arise as the litigation progresses.

Finally, there are alternative mechanisms available to the applicant. “A complainant’s privacy can be protected in several ways, including redacting records and sealing them, seeking a protective order, or entering into a confidentiality agreement.” Accordingly, with respect to Plaintiff's argument that anonymity will create more transparency, the Court is satisfied that the parties can find common ground where the public has access to all relevant information without Plaintiff needs to proceed anonymously…. “Redacted and sealed submissions are commonly used in cases involving sensitive medical information.” … “The fact that an affair involves a medical problem is not a sufficient reason to allow the use of a fictitious name, even though many people are understandably secretive about their medical problems.” …

Plaintiff's amended complaint asserts that he was admitted to a hospital under New York Mental Health Law 9.39 “for emergency observation and evaluation”; this law provides for short-term commitment for “a mental illness for which immediate observation, care and treatment in a hospital are appropriate and which is likely to result in serious harm to himself or others”. But the plaintiff states that he “consistently denied any suicidal ideation upon admission” and that “(by) discharging the plaintiff and not converting the plaintiff's admission into an involuntary commitment under Article 9, the Mental health professionals at (the hospital) determined that the complainant posed no danger to himself or others. » Likely to produce an interesting legal debate; at this point, the court only concluded that the case should be litigated on behalf of the plaintiff.