Citing references

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 550 (D.N.J. 2006) (allowing the plaintiff to proceed anonymously in insurance action to protect diagnosis of bipolar disorder, finding that the “[p]laintiff’s interest in remaining anonymous clearly outweigh[ed] the public’s interest

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J.2006) (“It is within a district court’s discretion to determine when a party may proceed anonymously.”).

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J.2006) (holding that review of factual findings is for clear error, and review of legal conclusions is de novo under L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(1)(A)).

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 550 (D.N.J. 2006)). However, “[t]he mere fact that a plaintiff alleges a mental health condition, or seeks to recover damages or benefits for a mental health condition, is not dispositive.” Id.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006). Ill. DISCUSSION A.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006) (citing Pharm. Sales & Consulting Corp. v. J.W.S. Delavau Co. Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 761, 764 (D.N.J. 2000)).

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006)). Here, the Court finds plaintiff’s motion and the allegations set forth in plaintiff’s amended complaint sufficiently support his request to proceed anonymously.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006). Legal conclusions on a non- dispositive motion are therefore reviewed de novo. See id.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006). A district court conducts a de novo review of legal conclusions. See Cooper Hosp./Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 183 F.R.D. 119, 127 (D.N.J. 1998).

Co,, 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J, 2006), but a magistrate judge's decision on discretionary matters is entitled to great deference and reversible only if the magistrate judge has abused his or her discretion. Fisai, 629 F.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006). However, “a magistrate judge’s legal conclusions on a non-dispositive motion will be reviewed de novo.” Id. III. DECISION A.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 550 (D.N.J. 2006) (“Before this litigation commenced, Plaintiff conscientiously kept his illness confidential[.]” (emphasis added)).

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545 , 550–51 (D.N.J. 2006) (finding that the plaintiff had “no illegal or ulterior motives . . . but merely [sought] to protect his reputation and not aggravate his medical condition”).

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J.2006); Evans, 202 F.R.D. at 175-76 .

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 549 (D.N.J.2006) (quoting Doe v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 176 F.R.D. 464, 467-68 (E.D.Pa.1997)).

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J.2006) (citing Pharm. Sales & Consulting Corp. v. J.W.S. Delavau Co., 106 F.Supp.2d 761, 764 (D.N.J.2000)).

Hartford Life & Accident Ins., Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J.2006); see also Eisai Co., Ltd. v. Teva Pharm.

Co ., 237 F.R.D. 545 , 550 (D.N.J. 2006) (bipolar disorder; the court noted a "theoretical possibility" that awareness of the illness would result in damage to the plaintiff's professional reputation); EW v. N.Y.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 547-48 (D.NJ.2006); Doe v. Marsh, 899 F.Supp. 933, 934 (N.D.N.Y.1995); see also Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 549 (D.N.J.2006)). Balancing, these competing interests, the Court does not find that the fifth or eighth factors weigh strongly in favor of either the Plaintiffs or the Defendants. 3.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J.2006); see also Eisai Co., Ltd. v. Teva Pharm.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 550 (D.N.J. 2006) (granting the plaintiff’s motion to file pseudonymously in an action related to the plaintiff’s severe bipolar disorder), 1 Defendants’ reliance on a copyright and RICO case, Roe, is unavailing because that case is

Hartford Life & Accident Ins., Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J.2006); see also Eisai Co., Ltd. v. Teva Pharm.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545 , 550 23 (D.N.J. 2006) (Judge Jose L. Linares). 24 Plaintiffs’ need for anonymity, therefore, outweighs the public’s interest in knowing 25 plaintiffs’ identities and any prejudice to defendants.

Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 550 (D.N.J. 2006) (“[t]he mere fact that a plaintiff alleges a mental health condition, or seeks to recover damages or benefits for a mental health condition, is not dispositive.”)).