United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2026

JANE DOE v. G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC.

JANE DOE v. G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided January 9, 2026
JANE DOE v. G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC.

Trial Court Opinion

1 Brett Schreiber (SBN 239707) [email protected] Meagan Verschueren (SBN 313117) [email protected] Katie Llamas (SBN 303983) [email protected] SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 591 Camino de la Reina, Ste. 1025 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel. (619) 771-3473 Attorneys for Plaintiff JANE DOE 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JANE DOE, an individual, No. 2:25-cv-03778-JAM-SCR Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC.; G6 PSEUDONYM (ECF No. 2) HOSPITALITY IP, LLC; G6 HOSPITALITY PROPERTY, LLC.; G6 HOSPITALITY PURCHASING, LLC.; G6 HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC.; MOTEL 6 OPERATING, LP.; SEAN TREVOR THOMPSON, an individual; CHRISTINA J.

THOMPSON, an individual; ROMY THOMPSON, an individual; SHELDON L. THOMPSON, an individual; SKYE THOMPSON, an individual; WYNDHAM HOTEL & RESORTS, INC.; KPK, Inc.; KHATRI, INC.; KHATRI BROTHERS, L.P.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SINGLETON SCHREIBER 1 The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and the authorities and evidence presented therein, and good cause appearing, hereby finds: 1. Plaintiff is a survivor of sex trafficking as defined under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1591 et seq.

2. Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to threats, coercion, physical force, and intimidation in connection with her trafficking, and reasonably fears retaliation, harassment, or even re-capture or harm by her traffickers should her identity become public.

3. The subject matter of this litigation involves deeply personal, sensitive, and traumatic experiences, the disclosure of which could subject Plaintiff to severe emotional distress, social stigma, or physical danger.

14 4. Courts have routinely recognized the importance of protecting trafficking and sexual assault survivors by permitting them to proceed anonymously in similar circumstances. See Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000); B.M. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2020 WL 4368214 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2020); M.L. v. Craigslist, 2020 WL 8639345 (W.D. Wash. July 8, 2020).

20 5. Plaintiff’s interest in avoiding retaliation, public humiliation, and emotional trauma outweighs the public’s interest in open judicial proceedings at this stage.

6. Proceeding under a pseudonym will not prejudice the Defendant, whose counsel may obtain Plaintiff’s identity pursuant to a protective order.

25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SINGLETON SCHREIBER 1 1. Plaintiff shall be permitted to proceed under the pseudonym “JANE DOE” in | all publicly filed documents and proceedings in this action.

3 2. Plaintiff's true name and any identifying information shall be disclosed only ; to the Court and to counsel for Defendant, and shall be maintained under strict confidentiality, subject to a protective order.

7 3. All parties and their counsel shall refer to Plaintiff as “JANE DOE?” in public | filings and shall redact or omit any identifying information that could lead to the disclosure of Plaintiffs identity.

4 4, Any documents filed with the Court that contain Plaintiffs full name or identifying information shall be filed under seal in accordance with Local Rule 141.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 08, 2026 17 AN A MENDEY 18 SENIOR UNITEMSTATES DisTRICT JUDGE ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SINGLETON SCHREIBER PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM 591 CAMINO DE LA REINA, STE. 1025 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 (619) 771-3473

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.