B.M. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.

Background

B.M. brought this action under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, alleging that hotel chains profited from sex trafficking conducted in rooms rented under their brands. B.M. had been allowed to proceed using her initials. After B.M. died, her mother, J.M., became the plaintiff as personal representative of B.M.’s estate. J.M. asked to continue the case under a pseudonym.

The request and objections

J.M. sought to protect sensitive information concerning the sex trafficking of her daughter and to protect herself from retaliation. In a declaration, she stated that she believed the traffickers were gang members, that they had terrified and physically harmed B.M., and that they had threatened B.M. and her family. She also stated that her car was vandalized while she attended the traffickers’ criminal trial and that people involved in the trafficking may know what she looks like.

Four franchisor defendants stated that they took no position on pseudonym use in pretrial filings but objected to its use at trial. Two other defendants did not respond. The franchisor defendants also argued that J.M.’s disclosure of her full name in some filings weighed against the request.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 generally requires a complaint to name all parties. The court explained that parties may use pseudonyms in unusual cases when hiding a person’s identity is necessary to prevent harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment. Courts weigh the person’s need for anonymity against prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the person’s identity.

The court found that J.M.’s desire to protect information about her deceased daughter’s trafficking and her fear of retaliation were adequate reasons for anonymity. It found no present prejudice to the defendants because they already knew J.M.’s identity, and it concluded that the public interest could be served without disclosing her name. The court also rejected the argument that J.M.’s earlier disclosure of her name defeated her request.

The court did not decide whether J.M. could use a pseudonym at trial. Instead, it said defendants could raise objections if and when the case reached trial, because any prejudice must be assessed at each stage of the case.

Order

The court granted J.M.’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym. Defendants may object to J.M.’s continued use of a pseudonym if and when the case goes to trial. The court also vacated the hearing set for March 20, 2025 and terminated the motion identified as ECF 206.