Doe v. Steele et al

Filing 26

ORDER Granting in Part 4 Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and Leave to Proceed Anonymously. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's motion. The Court GRANTS leave for Plaintiff to proceed anonymously under the pseudonym Jane Doe in her public filings. The Court ORDERS all publicly filed materials in this action refer to Plaintiff as Jane Doe. The Court declines to rule on Plaintiff's request for a protective order and refers the matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge for consideration in due course. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 11/13/2020. (tcf)

Case 3:20-cv-01818-MMA-MSB Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.216 Page 1 of 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JANE DOE,

Case No. 20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

MOTION GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND LEAVE
TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

CISSY STEELE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

[Doc. No. 4]

16
17
18
19

Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against multiple Defendants alleging that

20

she was targeted and groomed for “for the sole purpose of sex trafficking her, in violation

21

of the [Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act].” Doc. No. 12 (“FAC”) ¶ 1.

22

Plaintiff now moves for a protective order and leave to proceed anonymously. See Doc.

23

No. 4. A group of Defendants—Diabolic Video Productions, Inc.; Black Ice LTD; Zero

24

Tolerance Entertainment, Inc.; and Third Degree Films (collectively, “Video

25

Defendants”)—have filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. See Doc. No. 16. Plaintiff

26

has not filed a reply. The Court found the matter suitable for determination on the papers

27

and without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil

28
1
20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)

Case 3:20-cv-01818-MMA-MSB Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.217 Page 2 of 9

1

Local Rule 7.1.d.1. See Doc. No. 18. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

2

GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion.

3
4
5
6

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s action arises from sex trafficking allegations against one individual and
several pornographic film studios and websites. See FAC ¶¶ 20–31.
Representing herself as a talent agent and promising to make Plaintiff a model,

7

Cissy Steele (“Steele”) allegedly targeted and groomed Plaintiff for sex trafficking. See

8

id. ¶¶ 1, 2. Plaintiff claims Steele “coerced and lured [Plaintiff] to move into her home”

9

where Steele then used “psychological manipulation and coercion, intimidation tactics,

10

threats, and physical violence to control, dominate and exploit [Plaintiff].” Id. ¶¶ 3, 4.

11

Plaintiff further avers that Steele forced Plaintiff to engage in “commercial sex acts” and

12

then forced Plaintiff to give the profits to her. Id. ¶ 5. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that

13

Steele forced her to perform in pornographic videos for adult film companies against her

14

will. See id. ¶ 6. The film companies paid Steele directly and failed to pay Plaintiff for

15

her involuntary work. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that the pornographic film

16

studios and websites participated in Steele’s sex trafficking venture because they knew,

17

or should have known, Steele was trafficking Plaintiff and “knowingly benefited from her

18

illegal venture by selling videos and posting videos through online websites that featured

19

Jane Doe for profit.” Id. ¶¶ 7–8.

20

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff has brought seven causes of action: (1)

21

violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a); (2)

22

participation in a venture in violation of the TVPA, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a); (3) financially

23

benefiting from sex trafficking in violation of the TVPA, 18 U.S.C. § 1595; (4)

24

conspiracy to commit violation of the TVPA, 18 U.S.C. § 1594; (5) violation of record

25

keeping requirements, 18 U.S.C. § 2257; (6) preliminary and permanent injunction; and

26

(7) violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 226.8, 1194. Id. ¶¶ 136–188. Plaintiff

27

claims she uses “a pseudonym to protect her identity because of the sensitive and highly

28

personal nature of this matter” and because of the “serious risk of retaliatory harm
2
20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)

Case 3:20-cv-01818-MMA-MSB Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.218 Page 3 of 9

1

because Steele has continued to contact [Plaintiff] and her family, threatening physical

2

violence against her.” Id. ¶¶ 15, 16. Plaintiff now moves for a protective order and leave

3

to proceed anonymously. See Doc. No. 4.

4
5

II. LEGAL STANDARD
A plaintiff’s use of a fictitious name “runs afoul of the public’s common law right

6

of access to judicial proceedings and Rule 10(a)’s command that the title of every

7

complaint ‘include the names of all the parties.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile

8

Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

10(a)). “This presumption is loosely related to the public’s right to open courts, and the

10

right of private individuals to confront their accusers.” Doe v. Kamehameha

11

Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations

12

omitted).

13

The Ninth Circuit permits parties “to use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual case’ when

14

nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from

15

harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Advanced Textile Corp., 214

16

F.3d at 1067–68 (quoting United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1980)).

17

“[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special

18

circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing

19

party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. When a

20

pseudonym is used to protect the anonymous party from retaliation, courts determine

21

whether anonymity is necessary through analyzing three factors: “(1) the severity of the

22

threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears; and (3) the

23

anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation.” Id. (citations omitted). In

24

determining prejudice, courts must “determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the

25

proceedings to the opposing party, and whether proceedings may be structured so as to

26

mitigate that prejudice.” Id. Finally, courts must determine “whether the public’s

27

interest in the case would be best served by requiring that the litigants reveal their

28

identities.” Id.
3
20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)

Case 3:20-cv-01818-MMA-MSB Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.219 Page 4 of 9

1

When the party seeking anonymity meets this burden, the court “should use its

2

powers to manage pretrial proceedings and to issue protective orders limiting disclosure

3

of the party’s name to preserve the party’s anonymity to the greatest extent possible

4

without prejudicing the opposing party’s ability to litigate the case.” Id. at 1069

5

(citations omitted).

6
7

III. DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously

8
9

Plaintiff seeks the Court’s leave to bring her action anonymously as well as “a
protective order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), to ensure that

10

Defendants keep Plaintiff’s identity confidential throughout the pendency of the lawsuit

11

and thereafter.” Doc. No. 4-1 at 2.1 She also wants “redaction of her personally

12

identifying information from the public docket and assurances that Defendants will not

13

use or publish, Plaintiff’s identity pursuant to the protective order.” Id. at 10. In the final

14

sentence of her motion, Plaintiff further requests the Court “order that any release or

15

deliberate disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity by Defendants, to anyone outside of their legal

16

representatives, be sanctionable and accountable to the fullest extent of the law.” Id.

17

To assess whether Plaintiff should proceed anonymously, the Court must balance

18

Plaintiff’s need against prejudice to Defendants’ and the public’s interest. The Court

19

addresses each interest in turn.

20

1. Plaintiff’s Need for Anonymity

21

First, the Court considers Plaintiff’s need for anonymity. Plaintiff argues that

22

disclosing her identity would reveal highly sensitive and personal information. Doc. No.

23

4-1 at 5. In particular, Plaintiff points to her allegations that she was forced and coerced

24

into sex trafficking, having sex for profit under the threat of violence to her and her

25

family, and engaging in a relationship with adult film companies. Id. at 6 (citing Doc.

26
27
28

1

All citations refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system.
4
20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)

Case 3:20-cv-01818-MMA-MSB Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.220 Page 5 of 9

1

No. 1 ¶¶ 46–52). Plaintiff further asserts that disclosure would worsen the psychological

2

harm she already suffers. See id. She contends that disclosure would bring Plaintiff into

3

the public spotlight, which would cause “severe embarrassment” and would make her

4

more vulnerable to the trauma she escaped. See id. 7, 8.

5

Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate her need to proceed anonymously. Plaintiff is a

6

survivor of human trafficking. See FAC ¶¶ 1–5. She was subjected to “psychological

7

manipulation and coercion, intimidation tactics, threats, and physical violence.” Id. ¶¶ 4;

8

see also id. 41, 43, 57. When Plaintiff did not adhere to Steele’s orders, Steele threatened

9

Plaintiff and her family and physically abused Plaintiff. See id. ¶¶ 43, 51, 57, 62. These

10

threats included threatening to kill Plaintiff and her dog if she did not cooperate. See id.

11

¶¶ 43, 62. Steele forced Plaintiff prostitute herself and pass the profit to Steele. See id.

12

¶¶ 5, 47–53. Steele further forced Plaintiff to perform in pornographic videos. See id.

13

¶¶ 6, 56–57. Steele forced Plaintiff to take “illicit drugs” to make her dependent on

14

Steele. Id. ¶ 63. Steele’s threats continued after Plaintiff escaped her control:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

69. After Jane Doe escaped Steele’s control, Steele began calling Jane Doe’s
mother and neighbor, threatening them and Jane Doe if she did not return.
Steele made threatening calls to Jane Doe’s neighbor and mother almost
every week after Jane Doe left her control.
70. Steele threatened to find Jane Doe and hunt her down if she did not
return and/or if she did not remain silent about Steele’s sex trafficking
scheme.
Id. ¶¶ 69–70.

23

Based on these allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiff has a high need for

24

anonymity. See B.M. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 20-cv-00656-BLF, 2020

25

WL 4368214, at *10 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2020) (finding the plaintiff’s need for anonymity

26

weighs in favor of granting the request when she was sex trafficked as a minor and the

27

case involved sensitive and highly personal information); Doe v. Penzato, No. CV10-

28

5154 MEJ, 2011 WL 1833007, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2011) (finding the plaintiff had
5
20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)

Case 3:20-cv-01818-MMA-MSB Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.221 Page 6 of 9

1

a high need for anonymity where she alleged she was the victim of human trafficking,

2

forced labor, and sexual battery). Plaintiff’s proffered rationale for her motion rests on

3

the highly sensitive and personal nature of her allegations. Therefore, the Court finds that

4

Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to show that she has a high need for anonymity.

5

2. Prejudice to Defendants

6

Second, the Court considers prejudice to Defendants that would occur if Plaintiff

7

proceeds anonymously. Plaintiff argues that her requested relief will not prejudice

8

Defendants because her name will be provided to Defendants “subject to a protective

9

order that prohibits disclosure to any third parties.” Doc. No. 4-1 at 9. Plaintiff contends

10

that there is no other mechanism to protect her identity. Id. at 10. Video Defendants

11

respond that “[c]omplete anonymity will hinder the investigation and discovery efforts.”

12

Doc. No. 16 at 7; see also id. at 8. Video Defendants further contend that anonymity

13

would “cast[] a shadow of speculation and suspicion on its business and its employees.”

14

Id. at 7. They take particular issue with Plaintiff’s request for sanctions for “any release

15

or deliberate disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity by Defendants, to anyone outside of their

16

legal representatives.” Id. at 8 (quoting Doc. No. 4-1 at 10). They contend that this relief

17

is overbroad and would hinder discovery as well as is punitive because Plaintiff does not

18

allege Video Defendants threatened, coerced, or retaliated against her. See id. Video

19

Defendants point out that they have used Plaintiff’s image and stage name over the last

20

ten years and waiting to unmask her legal name will not cure prejudice. See id. In

21

further arguing that Plaintiff’s requested relief is prejudicial, Video Defendants note that

22

adhering to Plaintiff’s wishes would prevent them from contacting potential witnesses.

23

See id. at 9–10.

24

Here, the Court must “determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the

25

proceedings to the opposing party, and whether proceedings may be structured so as to

26

mitigate that prejudice.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068 (emphasis added).

27

Video Defendants’ objections focus on prejudice during the discovery and later phases of

28

the litigation. See Doc. No. 16 at 8, 9. The action is currently at the pleadings stage:
6
20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)

Case 3:20-cv-01818-MMA-MSB Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.222 Page 7 of 9

1

Plaintiff has filed her FAC, and Defendants have not yet answered. Video Defendants

2

have not shown how Plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym at this stage of the litigation is

3

prejudicial or, even if they did, how such prejudice outweighs the heavy need for Plaintiff

4

to proceed anonymously. As to Video Defendants’ argument regarding “a shadow of

5

speculation and suspicion on its business and its employees,” Doc. No. 16 at 7, the Court

6

finds this argument unavailing because they will still face public exposure regardless of

7

whether Plaintiff proceeds anonymously and Plaintiff’s allegations would otherwise

8

remain unchanged. See Penzato, 2011 WL 1833007, at *4.

9

Moreover, Plaintiff does not necessarily foreclose total disclosure of her full name:

10

she expresses willingness to provide her name to Defendants subject to a protective order.

11

See Doc. No. 4-1 at 9. The Court finds that a protective order and case management

12

discussions would mitigate Defendants’ concerns over discovery and investigation given

13

that “it is foreseeable that anonymity would raise problems for discovery” and

14

“anonymity need not, and should not, impede either party’s ability to develop its case.”

15

Jane Roes 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 990, 996 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

16

Therefore, the Court finds that the prejudice against Defendants is low given that

17

the action is in the pre-discovery stage and the Court can manage the pretrial proceedings

18

to mitigate problems that anonymity may raise. See SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d

19

at 996 (quoting Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1069, 1072).

20

3. Public Interest in Knowing Plaintiff’s Identity

21

Third, the Court considers whether the public interest would best be served by

22

Plaintiff revealing her identity. Plaintiff asserts that the public would not be harmed

23

because there is a superior interest in allowing victims to bring their claims “without the

24

defendants deterring them from pursuing their claims by forcing the Plaintiff’s public

25

identification.” Doc. No. 4-1 at 8. She argues a central deterrent to reporting sex crimes

26

is victims’ fear of having their identity exposed and that the public interest is better

27

served when the victims feel comfortable to come forward. Id. In essence, she contends

28
7
20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)

Case 3:20-cv-01818-MMA-MSB Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.223 Page 8 of 9

1

“[c]ompelling the identification of Plaintiff will deter other sex trafficking litigation.” Id.

2

at 9.

3

The Court finds that proceeding anonymously “serves strong public interest

4

because other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes.” Wyndham Hotels

5

& Resorts, Inc., 2020 WL 4368214, at *10; see also Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No.

6

17-cv-05285-LHK, 2017 WL 6026248, at *22 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017); Penzato, 2011

7

WL 1833007, at *5. Additionally, the public interest is not threatened by withholding a

8

plaintiff’s identity where “there is nothing about the Plaintiff’s identity which makes it

9

‘critical to the working of justice’ and the basic facts of the case will be on public

10

record.” Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2020 WL 4368214, at *10 (quoting SFBSC

11

Mgmt., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 996). Therefore, the Court finds that the public interest

12

would be best served if Plaintiff is permitted to proceed anonymously.

13

4. Conclusion

14

After weighing Plaintiff’s high interest in needing anonymity, the relatively low

15

prejudice to Defendants at the pre-discovery stage of litigation, and the strong public

16

interest in allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously, the Court finds that Plaintiff has

17

met her burden to proceed under the “Jane Doe” pseudonym. Accordingly, the Court

18

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously under the pseudonym “Jane Doe”

19

in her public filings.

20

B. Motion for a Protective Order

21

In addition to seeking to proceed anonymously, and as noted above, Plaintiff

22

further seeks a “a protective order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), to

23

ensure that Defendants keep Plaintiff’s identity confidential throughout the pendency of

24

the lawsuit and thereafter.” Doc. No. 4-1 at 2. Relatedly, Plaintiff further requests the

25

Court “order that any release or deliberate disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity by

26

Defendants, to anyone outside of their legal representatives, be sanctionable and

27

accountable to the fullest extent of the law.” Id. at 10. Video Defendants oppose any

28
8
20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)

Case 3:20-cv-01818-MMA-MSB Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.224 Page 9 of 9

1

court order that limits their ability to engage in discovery and conduct an investigation

2

into the allegations. See Doc. No. 16 at 10.

3
4
5
6
7

In cases where plaintiff has demonstrated a need for anonymity, the district
court should use its powers to manage pretrial proceedings under Rule 16(b)
and to issue protective orders limiting disclosure of the party’s name under
Rule 26(c) “to preserve the party’s anonymity to the greatest extent possible
without prejudicing the opposing party’s ability to litigate the case.”

8

Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2020 WL 4368214, at *9 (first citing Advanced Textile

9

Corp., 214 F.3d at 1069; and then citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

26(c)). Because protective orders often pertain to discovery and Plaintiff seeks one

11

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court finds that her request for a

12

protective order should be addressed to the Magistrate Judge when the pleadings have

13

closed. See CivLR 72.1.b; Berg Civ. Chambers R. IV.C, VI, VII; see also Wyndham

14

Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2020 WL 4368214, at *10 (“[A]ny discovery issues (if presented

15

at all) are matters for another day.”). Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on

16

Plaintiff’s request for a protective order and refers the matter to the assigned Magistrate

17

Judge for consideration in due course.

18

IV. CONCLUSION

19

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion. The

20

Court GRANTS leave for Plaintiff to proceed anonymously under the pseudonym “Jane

21

Doe” in her public filings. The Court ORDERS all publicly filed materials in this action

22

refer to Plaintiff as “Jane Doe.” The Court declines to rule on Plaintiff’s request for a

23

protective order and refers the matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge for consideration

24

in due course.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2020

27
28
9
20-cv-1818-MMA (MSB)