Doe v. Salesforce.com Inc

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 11 JANE DOE, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00435-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION 13 SALESFORCE.COM INC ET AL, 14 Defendants. 15

17 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ G6 Hospitality, L.L.C.; G6 Hospitality IP, 18 L.L.C.; G6 Hospitality Property, L.L.C.; G6 Hospitality Purchasing, L.L.C.; and G6 Hospitality 19 Franchising, L.L.C. Motel 6, Inc., Operating, L.P. (collectively “G6 Defendants”) Motion for 20 Reconsideration of the Court’s Order on Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective 21 Order (Dkt. No. 85). Dkt. No. 89. 22 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). Such motions are ordinarily 23 denied absent “a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal 24 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 As the Court explained in its Order on Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for

24 Protective Order, Plaintiff’s legitimate safety concerns support the imposition of restrictions on 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 Plaintiffs 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. Jd. 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. ALA Be 23 Tana Lin United States District Judge