hough some Plaintiffs no longer live in the Palm Beach area, this should not undermine Plaintiffs’ need for anonymity. As the Court in Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 197 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal citation omitted), points out, “[I]t is now possible to ‘determine whether a given individual is a pa

ntitled to a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D. N.Y. 2006); Doe v. Blue Cr

ication poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more critically, to innocent non-parties. Doe. No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195-98 (E.D.N.Y. 2006), citing, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule l0(a), 28 U.S.C.A. Further, Plaintiffs cite cases wherein a psychologist o