January 23, 2026|Franchise Frontlines
January 23, 2026 | U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington | Unpublished Order
Executive Summary
In a discovery order arising from a Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) case against Motel 6 franchisor entities and a franchisee, Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel and cross-motion for protective order. The G6 franchisor defendants sought to reopen the plaintiff’s deposition to inquire into her alleged consensual commercial sex activity outside the trafficking period, her control over a social media account used to advertise commercial sex, and her drug use. The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 412 bars broad inquiry into consensual sexual behavior outside the alleged trafficking period for liability purposes, but permits targeted discovery into other sexual trauma where relevant to emotional damages. The court also allowed inquiry into social media control and drug use, warned that invocation of the Fifth Amendment may support an adverse inference, and awarded attorney’s fees for deposition misconduct. The order reinforces that TVPRA liability turns on knowledge of coercion—not mere awareness of commercial sex—and provides important guidance for franchisors defending trafficking claims.
Relevant Background
The plaintiff alleges that she was repeatedly trafficked for commercial sex at certain Motel 6 properties in Washington and asserts perpetrator, beneficiary, and vicarious liability claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) against the G6 franchisor entities and a franchisee operator.
To establish beneficiary liability, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that defendants knowingly benefited from participation in a venture that they knew or should have known was engaged in conduct violating the TVPRA. To establish vicarious liability against franchisors, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an agency relationship and underlying TVPRA liability of the hotel or its staff.
During the plaintiff’s deposition, defense counsel sought to question her about consensual commercial sex outside the alleged trafficking period, her use and control of a social media account used to advertise commercial sex, and her drug use. Plaintiff’s counsel objected repeatedly and instructed the witness not to answer certain questions. The defendants moved to compel and to reopen the deposition; plaintiff sought a protective order.
Decision
The court framed the discovery dispute through the lens of Federal Rule of Evidence 412, which generally prohibits evidence of a victim’s other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition in cases involving alleged sexual misconduct. Although Rule 412 is an evidentiary rule, courts routinely consider its policies when evaluating discoverability in civil trafficking cases.
With respect to liability, the court held that broad inquiry into consensual sexual behavior outside the trafficking period was improper. The G6 defendants argued that such inquiry went to whether plaintiff was engaged in involuntary commercial sex. The court rejected that reasoning, explaining that the relevant question for liability is what the defendants knew or should have known about coercion during the trafficking period—not whether plaintiff engaged in consensual commercial sex at other times.
The court emphasized that allegations of commercial sex activity alone do not establish trafficking under § 1591, which requires force, fraud, or coercion. Generalized evidence of prostitution does not satisfy the knowledge element of beneficiary liability.
At the same time, the court recognized that where a plaintiff seeks emotional distress damages, defendants may inquire into other sexual trauma—whether consensual or nonconsensual—to test causation and damages. The court required that any renewed motion to reopen the deposition specify the timing, scope, and subject matter of questioning and demonstrate that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs the risk of harm or unfair prejudice under Rule 412(b)(2).
The court also addressed questions regarding plaintiff’s control over a social media account used to advertise commercial sex. Because plaintiff alleged that traffickers controlled the account during the trafficking period but similar photographs appeared on the same account afterward, the court held that inquiry into who controlled the account before and after the trafficking period was relevant to coercion, impeachment, and damages. Plaintiff could invoke the Fifth Amendment, but the court warned that defendants may seek an adverse inference at trial.
Finally, the court ruled that plaintiff’s counsel improperly instructed the witness not to answer questions regarding drug use. Given that the complaint referenced drug use as part of the trafficking narrative and as an indicator of possible trafficking, such questioning was relevant to credibility, damages, and defendants’ knowledge. The court awarded defendants their reasonable fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion to compel.
Looking Forward
This order offers several practical takeaways for franchisors defending TVPRA claims.
First, courts continue to distinguish sharply between commercial sex and sex trafficking. Liability turns on knowledge—actual or constructive—of coercion. Attempts to conflate prostitution with trafficking are unlikely to survive scrutiny.
Second, Rule 412 remains a significant procedural guardrail in trafficking litigation. Defendants seeking to explore a plaintiff’s sexual history must articulate precisely how the evidence bears on liability or damages and demonstrate that its probative value substantially outweighs the risk of harm. Fishing expeditions into sexual predisposition will not be permitted.
Third, defendants may still pursue discovery that meaningfully tests causation and credibility. Evidence regarding control of advertising accounts, drug use, and alternative sources of emotional trauma may be discoverable, particularly where the plaintiff places those issues in controversy.
Finally, the order underscores the importance of disciplined deposition practice. Speaking objections and improper instructions not to answer can result in fee shifting and court-imposed limits on future discovery.
Although this ruling is procedural and does not resolve the merits of the underlying TVPRA claims, it reflects the Western District of Washington’s continued effort to cabin trafficking liability to situations involving plausible allegations of coercion and active participation, while balancing those standards against legitimate defense discovery needs. For hotel franchisors, that balance remains central to risk management in trafficking litigation.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter LLP and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
