K.R. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC

Background

The plaintiff sought a protective order imposing severe restrictions on the defendant’s ability to investigate and litigate the case. The court explained that deciding whether those restrictions were justified required balancing the plaintiff’s privacy interests and safety concerns against possible prejudice to the defendant and the public’s interest in the case.

The court found that the plaintiff had provided virtually no facts about herself, her traffickers, or the relationship between them. Because of that lack of information, the court could not meaningfully conduct the required balancing.

Ruling on the Motion

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order without prejudice. The plaintiff could file a renewed motion within 28 days of the order and could use the local procedures for filing that motion under seal if it contained information that should not be publicly accessible.

Interim Protective Order

Until the court ruled on a renewed motion, the plaintiff was required to provide the defendant, within two business days, with her full name, maiden name, aliases used at any time, and date of birth. She also had to provide, to the extent known or recalled, the full names, maiden names, aliases, and dates of birth of her traffickers and any known affiliates of those traffickers. She had to supplement the disclosures if additional information later became known.

The parties could immediately serve requests for production of documents. Within 14 days, they had to submit either a stipulated proposed protective order governing documents or competing proposed orders. They also had to exchange initial disclosures within 14 days if they had not already done so.

The plaintiff could continue proceeding under the pseudonym “K.R.” or as “Plaintiff” in public filings and public court proceedings through the pretrial period and until trial, unless it became clear that concealing her identity was no longer necessary. The parties and specified people involved in the litigation had to keep her true identity confidential during and after the case, with disclosure permitted only to listed categories such as the parties, counsel, the court, court reporters, mediators, qualified experts and consultants, certain records custodians, government personnel, insurers, and others covered by the order.

The defendant could not disclose the plaintiff’s true identity or the true identity of her traffickers except as allowed by the interim order. The defendant also could not contact the plaintiff’s traffickers or their known affiliates. Parties and third parties filing papers in the case had to redact or file under seal the plaintiff’s true identity and identifying information, including her full name, Social Security number, date of birth, address, medical-record number, and legal case numbers.

Effect of the Order

Judge Vince Chhabria therefore denied the requested protective order without prejudice and imposed the interim protective order pending a ruling on any renewed motion.