{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_ORDER___OTHER__NON__44_1","alternateName":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_ORDER___OTHER__NON__44_1.pdf","caption":"","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/286/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-12T18:19:23+00:00","description":"","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"286","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/286/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/286/index.md"},"name":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_ORDER___OTHER__NON__44_1","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2026 12:13 P TINDER NOTTS TOR/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2026\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK :\nNEW YORK COUNTY\nPRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND PART 35\nJustice\ninn nenen X\nJANE DOE, INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nPlaintiff,\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC.,CHI PHI CHAPTER HOUSE Sua Sponte Decision and Order\nASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC.,CHI PHI Directing Sealing of Certain\nEDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA BETA HOUSE Documents\nCORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA DELTA, DELTA DELTA\nDELTA SORORITY, ZAREEN ENTERPRISE\nLLC,MATTHEW INGALLS, JOHNATHAN NEWELL,\nWINSTON LEE, GILLIO LOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT\nNORRIS, SCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE, JOHN\nDOE, JOHN DOES, and ORAZIO PETITO,\nDefendants.\nannem nnn nen ne cece nmnennecnnnennnennen K\nThe Court, on its own motion, sua sponte directs the County Clerk to seal NYSCEF Docs.\n1, 6, 7, and 22, which contain the parties\u2019 purported addresses, and in the case of NYSCEF Doc.\n6, erroneously listed a non-party\u2019s address. Once those documents are sealed, plaintiff is directed\nto refile redacted versions of those documents omitting the parties\u2019 addresses. Ordinarily, the\nCourt does not sua sponte seal public documents due to the presumption of openness in civil\nlitigation. However, the extraordinary events which have followed the filing of this action warrant\nthis relief.\nThe First Department has held that trial courts must exercise their discretion to limit the\npublic nature of proceedings sparingly, and only when unusual circumstances so require\n(Anonymous v Anonymous, 27 AD3d 356, 361 [1st Dept 2006]). That is because court dockets are\npresumptively open to the public. The presumption of openness exists for several reasons: it is\nbelieved that open proceedings are a disinfectant against injustice, incompetence, perjury, and\n1 of 3 Paqe 1 of 3\n\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2026 12:13 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2026\n\nfraud (Danco Laboratories, Ltd. vy Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 7 [1st\nDept 2000]). Thus, when considering whether to seal certain documents, the Court must \u201cuse its\ndiscretion in balancing [parties\u2019] privacy interest[s] against the presumption in favor of open\ntrials.\u201d (Anonymous v Lerner, 124 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2015)]).\n\nIn this case, unusual circumstances certainly require sealing certain documents, including\na request for judicial intervention filed by the plaintiff, in which a purportedly erroneous address\nhas been included leading a non-party\u2019s family to be threatened and doxed.' This Court strongly\ncondemns the reported acts of threats and doxing, which can only be characterized as brash,\nreckless, and ultimately dangerous internet vigilantism. Our society has developed procedures and\nlegal mechanisms over the course of centuries to ensure justice and due process are afforded to all.\nWhen certain actors decide to work outside those robust and developed frameworks, innocent\npeople often get hurt. That is precisely what has happened here. Certain \u201cvigilantes\u201d have used an\nerroneous address to inundate a former marine and his family with threats, simply because of a\nname shared with a defendant in this case. That behavior must cease immediately, is completely\nunacceptable, and provides more than ample cause to seal certain documents on this Court\u2019s\ndocket.\n\nThe Court takes the complaint\u2019s allegations extremely seriously and appreciates attorneys\u2019\nzealous advocacy on behalf of all parties. However, everyone involved, be it the public, parties, or\ntheir attorneys, needs to do their part in bringing the temperature down before someone gets hurt.\nThis Court holds the rule of law and due process sacrosanct and deeply appreciates that public\ndebate on pertinent issues is a quintessential cornerstone of our democracy. However, public\ndebate should never become so heated that people engage in misguided vigilantism to the point\n\n' Doxing is the publishing of private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet,\ntypically with malicious intent.\n\n2 of 3 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2026 12:13 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2026\nthat individuals, whether a party to litigation or mistakenly identified as a party, become inundated\nwith malicious threats, or even worse, are physically harmed. In that situation, which is the point\nwe are reaching here, the legal processes we as a society subscribe to are impeded. Therefore, the\nCourt sua sponte directs the County Clerk to seal NYSCEF Docs. 1, 6-7 and 22 as those documents\ncontain personal identifying information of parties and non-parties which have been used by\ncertain observers to maliciously threaten and intimidate.\u201d\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\nORDERED that the Court sua sponte seals seal NYSCEF Docs. 1, 6-7 and 22 in accordance\nwith the accompanying sealing order; and it is further\nORDERED that plaintiff is directed to re-file redacted versions of NYSCEF Docs. 1, 6-7\nand 22 with the parties\u2019 purported addresses redacted from those documents; and it is further\nORDERED that upon notice of entry of this decision and order and the accompanying\nsealing order, the County Clerk shall immediately seal NYSCEF Docs. 1, 6-7 and 22.\nThis constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court\ntof4lre C2 w ape\nDATE HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND, J.S.C.\nCHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION\nGRANTED [| DENIED GRANTED IN PART [ \u00ab| OTHER\nAPPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER\nCHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [ ] REFERENCE\n* The Court is mindful that this information is highly likely to already be disseminated on the internet. However, the\nCourt issues this decision and order to do its part in mitigating the risk of harm and to caution all involved, whether\nparties or not, to act accordingly.\n3 of 3 Paae 3 of 3\n","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2026 12:13 P TINDER NOTTS TOR/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2026\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK :\nNEW YORK COUNTY\nPRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND PART 35\nJustice\ninn nenen X\nJANE DOE, INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nPlaintiff,\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC.,CHI PHI CHAPTER HOUSE Sua Sponte Decision and Order\nASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC.,CHI PHI Directing Sealing of Certain\nEDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA BETA HOUSE Documents\nCORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA DELTA, DELTA DELTA\nDELTA SORORITY, ZAREEN ENTERPRISE\nLLC,MATTHEW INGALLS, JOHNATHAN NEWELL,\nWINSTON LEE, GILLIO LOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT\nNORRIS, SCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE, JOHN\nDOE, JOHN DOES, and ORAZIO PETITO,\nDefendants.\nannem nnn nen ne cece nmnennecnnnennnennen K\nThe Court, on its own motion, sua sponte directs the County Clerk to seal NYSCEF Docs.\n1, 6, 7, and 22, which contain the parties\u2019 purported addresses, and in the case of NYSCEF Doc.\n6, erroneously listed a non-party\u2019s address. Once those documents are sealed, plaintiff is directed\nto refile redacted versions of those documents omitting the parties\u2019 addresses. Ordinarily, the\nCourt does not sua sponte seal public documents due to the presumption of openness in civil\nlitigation. However, the extraordinary events which have followed the filing of this action warrant\nthis relief.\nThe First Department has held that trial courts must exercise their discretion to limit the\npublic nature of proceedings sparingly, and only when unusual circumstances so require\n(Anonymous v Anonymous, 27 AD3d 356, 361 [1st Dept 2006]). That is because court dockets are\npresumptively open to the public. The presumption of openness exists for several reasons: it is\nbelieved that open proceedings are a disinfectant against injustice, incompetence, perjury, and\n1 of 3 Paqe 1 of 3\n\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2026 12:13 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2026\n\nfraud (Danco Laboratories, Ltd. vy Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 7 [1st\nDept 2000]). Thus, when considering whether to seal certain documents, the Court must \u201cuse its\ndiscretion in balancing [parties\u2019] privacy interest[s] against the presumption in favor of open\ntrials.\u201d (Anonymous v Lerner, 124 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2015)]).\n\nIn this case, unusual circumstances certainly require sealing certain documents, including\na request for judicial intervention filed by the plaintiff, in which a purportedly erroneous address\nhas been included leading a non-party\u2019s family to be threatened and doxed.' This Court strongly\ncondemns the reported acts of threats and doxing, which can only be characterized as brash,\nreckless, and ultimately dangerous internet vigilantism. Our society has developed procedures and\nlegal mechanisms over the course of centuries to ensure justice and due process are afforded to all.\nWhen certain actors decide to work outside those robust and developed frameworks, innocent\npeople often get hurt. That is precisely what has happened here. Certain \u201cvigilantes\u201d have used an\nerroneous address to inundate a former marine and his family with threats, simply because of a\nname shared with a defendant in this case. That behavior must cease immediately, is completely\nunacceptable, and provides more than ample cause to seal certain documents on this Court\u2019s\ndocket.\n\nThe Court takes the complaint\u2019s allegations extremely seriously and appreciates attorneys\u2019\nzealous advocacy on behalf of all parties. However, everyone involved, be it the public, parties, or\ntheir attorneys, needs to do their part in bringing the temperature down before someone gets hurt.\nThis Court holds the rule of law and due process sacrosanct and deeply appreciates that public\ndebate on pertinent issues is a quintessential cornerstone of our democracy. However, public\ndebate should never become so heated that people engage in misguided vigilantism to the point\n\n' Doxing is the publishing of private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet,\ntypically with malicious intent.\n\n2 of 3 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2026 12:13 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2026\nthat individuals, whether a party to litigation or mistakenly identified as a party, become inundated\nwith malicious threats, or even worse, are physically harmed. In that situation, which is the point\nwe are reaching here, the legal processes we as a society subscribe to are impeded. Therefore, the\nCourt sua sponte directs the County Clerk to seal NYSCEF Docs. 1, 6-7 and 22 as those documents\ncontain personal identifying information of parties and non-parties which have been used by\ncertain observers to maliciously threaten and intimidate.\u201d\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\nORDERED that the Court sua sponte seals seal NYSCEF Docs. 1, 6-7 and 22 in accordance\nwith the accompanying sealing order; and it is further\nORDERED that plaintiff is directed to re-file redacted versions of NYSCEF Docs. 1, 6-7\nand 22 with the parties\u2019 purported addresses redacted from those documents; and it is further\nORDERED that upon notice of entry of this decision and order and the accompanying\nsealing order, the County Clerk shall immediately seal NYSCEF Docs. 1, 6-7 and 22.\nThis constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court\ntof4lre C2 w ape\nDATE HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND, J.S.C.\nCHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION\nGRANTED [| DENIED GRANTED IN PART [ \u00ab| OTHER\nAPPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER\nCHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [ ] REFERENCE\n* The Court is mindful that this information is highly likely to already be disseminated on the internet. However, the\nCourt issues this decision and order to do its part in mitigating the risk of harm and to caution all involved, whether\nparties or not, to act accordingly.\n3 of 3 Paae 3 of 3\n","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/286/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/286"}