Doe, (S.E.S) v. Choice Hotels International, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
JANE DOE (S.E.S., an individual)
:
v. 	: 	Civil Action No. DKC 24-3776
:
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al. 	:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently 	pending 	and 	ready 	for 	resolution 	in 	this 	action
brought 	under 	the 	Trafficking 	Victims 	Protection 	Reauthorization
Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1581, et seq., is the motion for leave
to 	proceed 	under 	pseudonym 	filed 	by 	Plaintiff 	Jane 	Doe 	(S.E.S.)
(“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 19). 	The issues have been briefed, and the
court 	now 	rules, 	no 	hearing 	being 	deemed 	necessary. 	Local 	Rule
105.6. 	For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff, 	using 	the 	pseudonym 	“Jane 	Doe 	(S.E.S.),” 	filed
this action against Defendants Choice Hotels International, Inc.,
Choice 	Hotels 	International 	Services 	Corp. 	(collectively
“Choice”), and Phillip Hall Properties, L.L.C., d/b/a Quality Inn
(collectively, “Defendants”) on December 30, 2024 (ECF No. 1). 	On
January 24, 2025, the court notified Plaintiff that she needed to
file 	a 	motion 	to 	proceed 	anonymously 	and 	an 	unredacted 	complaint
if she wanted to proceed under a pseudonym (ECF No. 4). 	Plaintiff
Case 1:25-cv-00496-TFM-MU Doc# 27 Filed 05/14/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

2
filed a motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym on February
14, 	2025 	(ECF 	No. 5), 	with 	the 	unredacted 	complaint 	as 	an
attachment, 	(ECF 	No. 	5-1), 	and 	a 	motion 	to 	seal 	her 	motion 	for
leave 	to 	proceed 	under 	a 	pseudonym 	on 	February 	19, 	2025 	(ECF
No. 7).1 	On 	April 	11, 	2025, 	the 	court 	issued 	a 	paperless 	notice
informing 	Plaintiff 	that 	she 	may 	not 	file 	her 	motion 	to 	proceed
under 	pseudonym 	under 	seal 	because 	pursuant 	to 	Local 	Rule 	105.11
“[t]he Court will not rule upon the motion until at least fourteen
(14) 	days 	after 	it 	is 	entered 	on 	the 	public 	docket 	to 	permit 	the
filing 	of 	objections 	by 	interested 	parties” 	(ECF 	No. 17).
Plaintiff 	filed 	a 	publicly 	available 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	proceed
anonymously under a pseudonym on April 15, 2025 (ECF No. 19),2 and
Choice Defendants responded on April 28, 2025 (ECF No. 22).
II. 	Analysis
A. Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has
explained:
Pursuant 	to 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil
Procedure 10(a), a civil complaint “must name
all 	the 	parties.” 	The 	rule 	recognizes 	“the
general 	presumption 	of 	openness 	of 	judicial
proceedings,” which has a basis both in common
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 105.11, the material was placed under
seal 	temporarily 	pending 	a 	ruling 	on 	the 	motion 	to 	seal.
Accordingly, ECF Nos. 5 and 5-1 remain under seal.
2 	Plaintiff’s 	pending 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	proceed 	under
pseudonym 	(ECF 	No. 19) 	supersedes 	the 	motion 	to 	proceed 	under
pseudonym improperly filed under seal (ECF No. 5).
Case 1:25-cv-00496-TFM-MU Doc# 27 Filed 05/14/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

3
law 	and 	in 	the 	First 	Amendment. 	See 	James 	v.
Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238 (4 th Cir. 1993); Doe
v. 	Public 	Citizen, 	749 	F.3d 	246, 	265–66 	(4 th
Cir. 	2014). 	We 	have 	explained 	that
“[p]seudonymous 	litigation 	undermines 	the
public’s 	right 	of 	access 	to 	judicial
proceedings” 	because 	“[t]he 	public 	has 	an
interest 	in 	knowing 	the 	names 	of 	litigants,
and 	disclosing 	the 	parties’ 	identities
furthers 	openness 	of 	judicial 	proceedings.”
Public 	Citizen, 	749 	F.3d 	at 	274 	(internal
citations omitted).
Nevertheless, 	district 	courts 	may, 	in
their 	discretion, 	allow 	pseudonymous
litigation 	because 	“privacy 	or
confidentiality 	concerns 	are 	sometimes
sufficiently 	critical 	that 	parties 	or
witnesses 	should 	be 	allowed 	this 	rare
dispensation.” James, 6 F.3d at 238 (emphasis
supplied). 	To 	warrant 	this 	relief, 	the
circumstances 	must 	be 	“exceptional.” 	Pub.
Citizen, 749 F.3d at 273.
Doe v. Doe, 85 F.4th 206, 210-11 (4 th Cir. 2023). 	There are five
nonexhaustive 	factors 	district 	courts 	consider 	in 	determining
whether a party may proceed under a pseudonym:
(1) 	[W]hether 	the 	justification 	asserted 	by
the 	requesting 	party 	is 	merely 	to 	avoid 	the
annoyance 	and 	criticism 	that 	may 	attend 	any
litigation 	or 	is 	to 	preserve 	privacy 	in 	a
matter 	of 	sensitive 	and 	highly 	personal
nature; 	(2) 	whether 	identification 	poses 	a
risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to
the requesting party or even more critically,
to 	innocent 	nonparties; 	(3) 	the 	ages 	of 	the
persons whose privacy interests are sought to
be 	protected; 	(4) 	whether 	the 	action 	is
against a governmental or private party; and,
(5) 	relatedly, 	the 	risk 	of 	unfairness 	to 	the
opposing party from allowing an action against
it to proceed anonymously.
Case 1:25-cv-00496-TFM-MU Doc# 27 Filed 05/14/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

4
Doe, 	85 	F.4th 	at 	211 	(quoting 	James, 	6 	F.3d 	at 	238) 	(internal
quotation marks omitted).
The first factor requires that Plaintiff’s request to proceed
using a pseudonym be to “preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive
and 	highly 	personal 	nature,” 	not 	“merely 	to 	avoid 	the 	annoyance
and 	criticism 	that 	may 	attend 	any 	litigation.” 	James, 	6 	F.3d 	at
238. 	This factor is generally satisfied in cases involving sexual
misconduct. 	See 	Doe, 	85 	F.4th 	at 	212 	(upholding 	the 	district
court’s 	decision 	to 	allow 	plaintiff 	to 	proceed 	under 	a 	pseudonym
in 	a 	Tile 	IX 	case) 	(collecting 	cases); 	see 	also 	B.M. 	v. 	Wyndham
Hotels 	& 	Resorts, 	Inc., 	2020 	WL 	4368214, 	at 	*10 	(N.D. 	Cal. 	July
30, 	2020) 	(granting 	plaintiff’s 	request 	to 	proceed 	under 	a
pseudonym where she alleged she was the victim of sex trafficking);
H.G. 	v. 	Inter-Continental 	Hotels 	Corp., 	489 	F.Supp.3d 	697, 	713
(E.D. Mich. Sept. 23, 2020) (“Courts in cases that involve victims
of 	sex 	traffickers 	routinely 	allow 	plaintiffs . . . to 	proceed
under a pseudonym due to the sensitive and intimate nature of their
allegations”). 	Plaintiff 	alleges 	incidents 	of 	ongoing 	sex-
trafficking at 	a 	property 	controlled 	by 	Defendants. 	Plaintiff
alleges Defendants “had both actual and constructive knowledge of
the 	trafficking 	of 	[Plaintiff] 	. . . because 	the 	trafficking 	was
the 	direct 	result 	of 	[Defendants] 	facilitating 	her 	trafficking.”
(ECF No. 1 ¶ 78). 	Accordingly, the first factor weighs heavily in
favor of allowing Plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym.
Case 1:25-cv-00496-TFM-MU Doc# 27 Filed 05/14/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

5
The 	second 	factor 	considers 	“whether 	identification 	poses 	a
risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm” to the party seeking
to 	proceed 	under 	a 	pseudonym. 	James, 	6 	F.3d 	at 	238. 	Plaintiff
contends that she fears retaliation “from her trafficker and those
connected 	to 	him.” 	(ECF 	No. 19, 	at 	5). 	Plaintiff 	details 	the
physical 	and 	emotional 	harm 	she 	suffered 	due 	to 	her 	trafficker,
and she asserts her “only sense of security is that her trafficker
does not know her legal name.” 	(Id., at 1). 	Given the inherently
violent 	nature 	of 	sex 	trafficking, 	denying 	Plaintiff’s 	motion
could cause Plaintiff to face both physical and mental harm. 	The
second 	factor 	weighs 	in 	favor 	of 	allowing 	Plaintiff 	to 	proceed
under a pseudonym.
The third factor requires the court to consider “the ages of
the 	persons 	whose 	privacy 	interests 	are 	sought 	to 	be 	protected.”
James, 6 F.3d at 238. 	Plaintiff is an adult but she “was a minor
at 	the 	time 	she 	was 	trafficked.” 	(ECF 	No. 19, 	at 	5). 	Plaintiff
argues 	that 	because 	of 	her 	age 	at 	the 	time 	she 	was 	trafficked,
“this 	factor 	weighs 	in 	favor 	of 	protecting 	her 	identity, 	or 	at
least 	is 	of 	a 	neutral 	weight 	in 	this 	test.” 	(Id.). 	Generally,
when the party seeking to proceed under a pseudonym is not a minor,
courts 	find 	that 	the 	third 	factor 	weighs 	against 	allowing 	the
requesting 	party 	to 	proceed 	under 	a 	pseudonym. 	See 	Doe 	v. 	Anne
Arundel Cnty., No. 1:23-cv-03451-JRR, 2024 WL 2053719, at *5 (May
8, 	2024) 	(citing 	Smith 	v. 	Towson 	Univ., 	No. 	22-2998-JRR, 	2022 	WL
Case 1:25-cv-00496-TFM-MU Doc# 27 Filed 05/14/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

6
18142844, at *2 (D.Md. Nov. 30, 2022), aff’d, No. 22-2319, 2023 WL
3053034 	(4th 	Cir. 	Apr. 	24, 	2023) 	(finding 	that 	the 	third 	factor
weighed 	against 	permitting 	the 	plaintiff 	to 	proceed 	by 	pseudonym
where he was not a minor)). 	Because Plaintiff is not a minor, the
third factor weighs against permitting Plaintiff to proceed under
a pseudonym.
The 	fourth 	factor 	“considers 	whether 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	are
against 	a 	governmental 	or 	private 	party 	whose 	reputation 	may 	be
harmed unfairly if Plaintiff is permitted to proceed anonymously.”
Doe v. 2 Unknown Emp[s] of Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, No. 18-
930-DKC, 	2018 	WL 	3159068, 	at 	*2 	(June 	28, 	2018). 	“[C]ourts 	in
general are less likely to grant a plaintiff permission to proceed
anonymously when the plaintiff sues a private individual than when
the action is against a governmental entity seeking to have a law
or 	regulation 	declared 	invalid.” 	Doe 	v. 	Merten, 	219 	F.R.D. 	387,
394 	(E.D. 	Va. 	2004). 	“Actions 	against 	the 	government 	do 	no 	harm
to its reputation, whereas suits filed against private parties may
damage 	their 	good 	names 	and 	result 	in 	economic 	harm.” 	Doe 	v.
Pittsylvania 	Cnty., 	844 	F.Supp.2d 	724, 	730 	(W.D. 	Va. 	2012).
Plaintiff 	concedes 	that 	“[b]ecause 	all 	parties 	to 	this 	case 	are
private individuals or entities, the fourth James factor does not
weigh in her favor.” 	(ECF No. 19, at 5). 	Accordingly, the fourth
James 	factor 	does 	not 	weigh 	in 	favor 	of 	permitting 	Plaintiff 	to
proceed under a pseudonym.
Case 1:25-cv-00496-TFM-MU Doc# 27 Filed 05/14/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

7
Finally, the fifth factor considers whether there is a “risk
of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against
it 	to 	proceed 	anonymously.” 	James, 	6 	F.3d 	at 	238. 	Plaintiff
asserts she “is not seeking to withhold her identity from the Court
or 	Defense 	Counsel, 	and 	therefore, 	Defendant[s’] 	ability 	to
investigate 	and 	defend 	against 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	will 	not 	be
prejudiced.” 	(ECF 	No. 19, 	at 	6). 	Choice 	Defendants 	filed 	a
response 	in 	which 	they 	explain 	they 	do 	not 	“oppose 	Plaintiff
proceeding via pseudonym [] in Court public filings through trial,”
but they ask that “the application of such confidentiality at trial
be separately determined prior to the time of trial.” 	(ECF No. 22,
at 	1).3 	It 	is 	not 	presently 	necessary 	to 	determine 	whether
Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym at trial
because Plaintiff has not requested to do so.
Finally, 	allowing 	Plaintiff 	to 	proceed 	under 	a 	pseudonym 	is
not unfair to Defendants, because Defendants will know Plaintiff’s
identity and they will be able to investigate fully and respond to
Plaintiff’s 	claims. 	See 	Anne 	Arundel 	Cnty., 	2024 	WL 	2053719, 	at
3 	Choice 	Defendants 	also 	request 	that 	the 	court 	order
Plaintiff 	to 	“provide 	Choice 	with 	her 	true 	identity, 	any 	other
names 	by 	which 	she 	has 	been 	known, 	her 	social 	security 	number,
date of birth, address, the identity of her alleged trafficker(s),
and 	any 	other 	names 	by 	which 	her 	alleged 	trafficker(s) 	have 	been
known[.]” 	(ECF No. 22, at 1). 	Many of Choice Defendants’ requests
are 	more 	appropriately 	suited 	for 	discovery. 	The 	court 	will 	not
order Plaintiff to provide any information at this time other than
the Plaintiff’s identity.
Case 1:25-cv-00496-TFM-MU Doc# 27 Filed 05/14/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

8
*4; 	see 	also 	Doe 	v. 	Alger, 	317 	F.R.D. 	37, 	at 	41 	(W.D.V.A., 	Mar.
31, 	2016). 	Accordingly, 	the 	fifth 	factor 	weighs 	in 	favor 	of
granting Plaintiff’s motion.
Weighing all of the James factors, Plaintiff has sufficiently
shown 	that 	she 	should 	be 	allowed 	to 	proceed 	under 	the 	pseudonym
“Jane Doe (S.E.S.).” 	Defendants do not object, and the basis for
anonymity is strong. 	Plaintiff’s motion will be granted.
B. 	Motion to Seal
Plaintiff’s 	original 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	proceed 	under 	a
pseudonym 	(ECF 	No. 5), 	was 	filed 	with 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	unredacted
complaint 	(ECF 	No. 	5-1). 	The 	unredacted 	complaint 	should 	remain
under seal and the motion to seal should be granted to that extent.
The 	original 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	proceed 	under 	a 	pseudonym 	was
superseded 	by 	the 	later 	publicly 	filed 	motion 	and, 	thus, 	is 	no
longer operative. 	Thus, it would serve no purpose to unseal it at
this late date. 	Accordingly, the motion to seal (ECF No. 7), will
be granted.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, both Plaintiff’s motion for leave
to 	proceed 	under 	pseudonym 	and 	Plaintiff’s 	motion 	to 	seal 	her
motion for leave will be granted. 	A separate order will follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00496-TFM-MU Doc# 27 Filed 05/14/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>