Doe v. Salesforce.com Inc et al

Filing 92

ORDER. The Court GRANTS G6 Defendants' 89 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court further STRIKES the prior 88 Protective Order. The Court ORDERS G6 Defendants to file an amended stipulated protective order within five (5) days of this Order that omits the following sentence: "Defendants shall provide a written explanation of measures that will be taken to protect Plaintiff from Plaintiff's alleged trafficker(s) after disclosure." Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (MJV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00435-TL

JANE DOE,
v.

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

SALESFORCE.COM INC ET AL,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ G6 Hospitality, L.L.C.; G6 Hospitality IP,
L.L.C.; G6 Hospitality Property, L.L.C.; G6 Hospitality Purchasing, L.L.C.; and G6 Hospitality
Franchising, L.L.C. Motel 6, Inc., Operating, L.P. (collectively “G6 Defendants”) Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Order on Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective
Order (Dkt. No. 85). Dkt. No. 89.
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). Such motions are ordinarily
denied absent “a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal

24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable

2

diligence.” Id. Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in “highly unusual

3

circumstances.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880

4

(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999));

5

see also Inventist, Inc. v. Ninebot Inc., 664 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1215 (W.D. Wash. 2023) (noting

6

reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy,” and the moving party bears a “heavy burden”). “A

7

motion for reconsideration ‘may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first

8

time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Id. (emphasis in

9

original) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).

10

“Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.”

11

Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041,

12

1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters. Inc., 229 F.3d at 883).

13

G6 Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court’s inclusion of the following language in

14

the Protective Order: “Defendants shall provide a written explanation of measures that will be

15

taken to protect Plaintiff from Plaintiff’s alleged trafficker(s) after disclosure.” Dkt. No. 89 at 2;

16

see also Dkt. No. 85 at 12.

17

The focus of the Parties’ briefing on the underlying motion was the disclosure of

18

Plaintiff’s identity and overbreadth of her proposed order. See generally Dkt. Nos. 55-1, 63, 64,

19

65, 67, 70, 71. The Court focused on the same in its order. See generally Dkt. No. 85. The import

20

of the sentence at issue was not considered fully by the Court until G6 Defendants brought the

21

instant motion. The Court FINDS that G6 Defendants have made a showing of manifest error and

22

that reconsideration is appropriate.

23
24

As the Court explained in its Order on Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for
Protective Order, Plaintiff’s legitimate safety concerns support the imposition of restrictions on
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

1

Defendants’ contact with her traffickers and on Defendants’ ability to disclose Plaintiff’s identity

2

to them. See Dkt. No. 85 at 10–11. The Court therefore imposed a number of protections for

3

Plaintiff, including restricting the identifying information that may be provided to Plaintiff’s

4

traffickers to only Plaintiff’s name(s) or photograph, limiting Defendants’ contact with Plaintiff’s

5

traffickers to instances where the Court has evaluated the necessity of such contact and

6

determined that it is relevant and proportional, and advance notice to Plaintiff in the case that

7

Defendants do contact her traffickers. Id. at 12–13. The Court notes that the case cited by

8

Plaintiff for the requested language, E.S. v. Best W. Int'l, Inc., No. 3:20-CV-00050-M, 2021 WL

9

37458, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2021), does not include the requested sentence. Therefore, in line

10

with other courts granting protective orders in similar situations, the Court declines to create an

11

affirmative obligation for Defendants to do anything further than what is detailed in the

12

Protective Order. Should Plaintiff desire specific additional protections from Defendants, she

13

may file a motion if appropriate.

14

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

15

1. The Court GRANTS G6 Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

16

2. The Court further STRIKES the prior Protective Order (Dkt. No. 88).

17

3. The Court ORDERS G6 Defendants to file an amended stipulated protective order

18

within five (5) days of this Order that omits the following sentence: “Defendants

19

shall provide a written explanation of measures that will be taken to protect

20

Plaintiff from Plaintiff’s alleged trafficker(s) after disclosure.”

21

Dated this 21st day of October 2024.

22
23

Tana Lin
United States District Judge

24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3