## Facts

- Jane Doe, a Virginia resident employed in Washington, D.C., began a romantic relationship with Richard Roe, a District of Columbia resident.
- Most of the parties’ contacts occurred in the District of Columbia.
- On April 26, 1990, after dinner in the District, the parties went to Doe’s home in Virginia and had sexual intercourse (the Virginia encounter).
- On April 29, 1990, the parties had sexual intercourse at a hotel in the District of Columbia (the District encounter).
- On May 1, 1990, Doe developed symptoms later associated with genital herpes (Herpes Simplex Type II) and human papilloma virus (genital warts).
- The incubation period for herpes (about two to ten days) made it difficult to determine which encounter caused the infection.
- Doe alleged Roe misrepresented that he was free of sexually transmitted diseases and asserted tort theories including negligence, fraud, battery, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- At the time, both Virginia and the District of Columbia criminalized nonmarital sexual intercourse, reflecting distinct local policy choices relevant to related civil claims.

## Issues

1. Under District of Columbia choice-of-law rules applicable in diversity, whether Virginia or District of Columbia substantive law governed Doe’s tort claims arising from conduct occurring in both jurisdictions.
2. Whether the court should apply a single jurisdiction’s law to the entire dispute or apply different jurisdictions’ laws to conduct occurring within each territory.

## Decision

- The court applied District of Columbia choice-of-law methodology because it was sitting in diversity in the District of Columbia.
- The court held that the law of each jurisdiction would apply to events occurring within its respective territory.
- Virginia law governed claims attributable to the Virginia encounter.
- District of Columbia law governed claims attributable to the District encounter and other relevant conduct occurring in the District.
- The court rejected Roe’s attempt to have a single jurisdiction’s law applied in a manner that would categorically bar Doe’s claims and denied summary judgment to that extent.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court sitting in diversity applies the forum jurisdiction’s choice-of-law rules.
- Under the District of Columbia’s governmental-interests approach, the governing law is determined by assessing which jurisdiction has the more substantial interest in applying its law to the relevant conduct and policies at issue.
- In multijurisdiction tort disputes, a court may use depecage and apply different jurisdictions’ laws to different events or issues within the same case.
- When material conduct occurs in multiple jurisdictions and causation cannot be tied to a single location, territorial application of each jurisdiction’s law to in-territory events may best reflect each jurisdiction’s regulatory interests.

## Conclusion

The court resolved the case at the choice-of-law stage by applying depecage: Virginia law governed tort consequences of the parties’ sexual encounter in Virginia, while District of Columbia law governed consequences of their encounter and related conduct in the District, leaving the merits of Doe’s tort claims to be evaluated under the respective substantive laws.


Doe v. Roe, 841 F. Supp. 444 (D.D.C. 1994)