Doe v. Brisam Clinton LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-04032
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jane Doe (K.S.) v. Brisam Clinton LLC, Judge Liman allowed pseudonymous filing and summons issuance while reserving decision on the anonymity motion.
Jane Doe (K.S.) and the corporate hotel-related defendants were affected by the court’s decision to allow pseudonymous filing and issue summonses; the court did not decide the pseudonym motion itself.
What happened
In Jane Doe (K.S.) v. Brisam Clinton LLC, the plaintiff sued hotel-related corporate defendants under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, alleging that she was repeatedly trafficked for sex at hotels in the district. She asked to use a pseudonym in public filings and proceedings.
The plaintiff said she would provide her full name and identifying information to the defendants through their lawyers under a protective order. The court considered the sensitive and personal nature of the allegations, along with the defendants’ ability to investigate the claims using that information.
Judge Lewis J. Liman permitted the complaint to be filed under a pseudonym and directed the clerk to issue summonses to the defendants. The court reserved decision on the plaintiff’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Brisam Clinton LLC · No. 1:23-cv-04032
- Lewis Liman
- May 17, 2023
Background
Jane Doe (K.S.) filed a complaint under a pseudonym against Brisam Clinton LLC, doing business as Comfort Inn; LCP Rye LLC, doing business as Hilton; BRE/Prime Mezz LLC, doing business as La Quinta Inn & Suites; La Quinta Holdings Inc.; Choice Hotels International, Inc.; Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, LLC; Hilton Resorts Corporation; and Hilton Management LLC. The complaint asserted a claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and sought to hold the corporate defendants liable for allegedly furthering sex trafficking. The plaintiff alleged that she was repeatedly trafficked for sex at several hotels in the district.
The plaintiff moved to proceed under a pseudonym in all public filings and proceedings. She represented that she would provide her full name and identifying information to the defendants through their counsel, subject to an appropriate protective order.
Issue
At this stage, the court considered whether to allow the complaint to be filed under a pseudonym and whether the clerk could issue summonses to the defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires the complaint’s title to name all parties. The Second Circuit has held that this naming requirement cannot be set aside lightly and has identified factors for weighing a plaintiff’s interest in anonymity against the public interest in disclosure and possible prejudice to defendants.
Ruling
The court permitted the filing of the complaint and the issuance of summonses. It relied on the highly sensitive and personal nature of the allegations and the plaintiff’s representation that she would disclose her identifying information to the defendants under a protective order. The court also noted that similar cases had allowed plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms during pretrial proceedings when defendants could obtain the plaintiffs’ personal information for investigating the claims.
The clerk was directed to issue the summonses requested by the plaintiff. The court expressly reserved decision on the motion to proceed under a pseudonym.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.