curity against the public's interest in identification of the litigants and the harm to the defendant stemming from suppression of Plaintiffs name." Doe v. Smith, 105 F.Supp.2d 40, 44 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). The ultimate test for permitting a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is whether the plaintiff has a substanti

l molestation and abuse cannot proceed anonymously without a sufficient showing of particularized harm to the plaintiff if anonymity is not allowed. Doe v. Smith, 189 FRD 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (anonymous action alleging sexual molestation against psychiatrist not allowed), vacated on reconsideration based on n

(4th Cir.I 993); Ill v. New York Blood Center, 213 F.R.D. 108, 110-12 (E.D.N.Y.2003); Javier v. Garcia-Botello, 211 F.R.D. 194, 196 (W.D.N.Y.2002); Doe v. Smith, 105 F.Supp.2d 40, 43-44 (E.D.N.Y.1999); Doe v. United Servs. Life Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Sexual assault victims are a paradi