Jane Doe (T.R.S.) v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Jane Doe’s unopposed motion to proceed under a pseudonym through pretrial proceedings. The court grants in part and denies in part her motion for a protective order concerning disclosure of her identity, requiring a modified acknowledgment for non-party fact witnesses and their counsel. The parties must meet and confer and submit a modified protective order within fourteen days.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff may proceed under the pseudonym Jane Doe through pretrial proceedings; if the case proceeds to trial, the parties must raise the pseudonym issue with the court.
2. A protective order was warranted in part because Plaintiff demonstrated legitimate safety concerns and the court's modified approach properly balanced private safety interests against Defendants' ability to investigate, conduct discovery, and defend themselves.
3. Nonparty fact witnesses and their counsel must execute a separate acknowledgment and agreement that removes paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 of the proposed form and modifies paragraph 4 to prohibit use or disclosure of Plaintiff's identity in connection with or in relation to the lawsuit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym through pretrial proceedings.
2. Whether good cause supported entry of a protective order governing disclosure of Plaintiff's identity.
3. What restrictions should apply to nonparty fact witnesses and their counsel who receive Plaintiff's identity information.

Disposition

other