February 09, 2026|Franchise Frontlines
February 9, 2026 | U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington | Slip Copy
Executive Summary
In an amended discovery order, Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel filed by Motel 6 franchisor defendants in a Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) case. The plaintiff, an alleged survivor of sex trafficking, asserted perpetrator liability, beneficiary liability, and vicarious liability claims against hotel operators and the G6 franchisor entities. The franchisor defendants sought to reopen her deposition to question her about consensual commercial sex outside the alleged trafficking period, her drug use, and her control over a social media account allegedly used to advertise commercial sex. The plaintiff argued that Federal Rule of Evidence 412 barred inquiry into her sexual history and that the questioning was intrusive and irrelevant. The court held that Rule 412 precludes broad inquiry into consensual sexual conduct outside the trafficking period for purposes of liability, but permits targeted discovery into sexual trauma as it relates to damages and allows questioning regarding drug use and control of the social media account. The court also awarded fees against plaintiff’s counsel for improper deposition conduct.
Relevant Background
The plaintiff alleged that traffickers forced her to engage in commercial sex at certain Motel 6 properties in Washington between approximately 2015 and 2021. She brought claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) for perpetrator liability, beneficiary liability based on what defendants “knew or should have known,” and vicarious liability against the G6 franchisor entities predicated on an alleged principal–agent relationship with hotel operators and staff.
To establish liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants had actual knowledge of trafficking for perpetrator liability, actual or constructive knowledge for beneficiary liability, and a qualifying agency relationship to impose vicarious liability on the franchisor. She also sought damages for mental anguish and emotional distress.
During her deposition, defense counsel questioned the plaintiff about consensual commercial sex outside the alleged trafficking period, her history of drug use, and who controlled a social media account used to advertise commercial sex. Plaintiff’s counsel objected repeatedly and instructed the witness not to answer certain questions, invoking Rule 412. The franchisor defendants moved to compel further testimony and to reopen the deposition. The plaintiff cross-moved for a protective order.
Decision
The court began its analysis with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged matters relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Because the case involved alleged sexual misconduct, the court evaluated the permissible scope of discovery through the framework of Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Rule 412 generally bars evidence of a victim’s other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition unless its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm and unfair prejudice.
With respect to liability, the court rejected the franchisor defendants’ attempt to explore consensual commercial sex outside the alleged trafficking period. The court reasoned that liability under the TVPRA turns on what the defendants knew or should have known about coercion during the relevant time frame, not on whether the plaintiff engaged in voluntary commercial sex before or after that period. The court emphasized that evidence of consensual sex outside the trafficking period does not bear on whether hotel operators or the franchisor had actual or constructive knowledge that the plaintiff was being coerced. Allowing such inquiry would risk precisely the type of character-based inference that Rule 412 was enacted to prevent.
The court reached a different conclusion regarding damages. Because the plaintiff alleged emotional distress and mental anguish, the defendants may inquire into other sexual trauma occurring before or after the trafficking period to challenge causation and the extent of damages. However, the court required the defendants to meet and confer regarding the scope, timing, and manner of such discovery and to consider less intrusive alternatives such as interrogatories, medical records, and expert disclosures before seeking to reopen the deposition. Any renewed motion to reopen the deposition must demonstrate that the proposed inquiry is more probative than prejudicial and consistent with Rule 412’s protections.
The court also addressed questions concerning control of the social media account. The plaintiff alleged that traffickers controlled the account during the trafficking period, yet the same account allegedly remained active afterward. The court held that inquiry into who controlled the account before and after the trafficking period was relevant to issues of coercion, impeachment, and damages. Although the plaintiff may invoke the Fifth Amendment, the court noted that an adverse inference could be sought at trial if appropriate.
Similarly, the court held that plaintiff’s counsel improperly instructed the witness not to answer questions about drug use. Because the complaint referenced drug use as part of the trafficking narrative and as a potential indicator of trafficking, the court found the topic relevant to credibility, damages, and what defendants could have known. The plaintiff must answer such questions either through interrogatories or in a reopened deposition.
Finally, the court sanctioned plaintiff’s counsel for improper speaking objections and instructions not to answer, awarding defendants their reasonable expenses for bringing the motion to compel under Rule 37. The court declined, however, to shift costs for any future deposition time.
Looking Forward
This order underscores that knowledge remains the central axis of TVPRA liability for hotel franchisors. Courts will focus on whether a franchisor knew or should have known of coercion, not merely of commercial sex activity. Evidence that does not tie directly to that knowledge element may face substantial resistance, particularly where Rule 412 concerns are implicated. Franchisors defending trafficking claims should therefore align discovery strategy closely with the statutory knowledge standards and articulate clearly how each line of inquiry bears on coercion, agency, or damages.
The decision also illustrates that courts will permit targeted discovery into alternative sources of emotional harm when plaintiffs place emotional distress squarely at issue. At the same time, judges may require phased or narrowed discovery in sensitive cases and may expect parties to exhaust less intrusive methods before reopening depositions.
For franchisors, the order reinforces the continued importance of compliance programs focused on identifying and responding to indicators of coercion, not merely suspicious activity. It also highlights the procedural rigor courts expect in high-stakes TVPRA litigation, both in crafting discovery requests and in conducting depositions. As trafficking claims against national hotel brands continue to develop, disciplined, knowledge-centered defense strategies remain critical.
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.
