| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION – COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY FACILITATOR PROGRAM
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, and Request for Production Nos. 9-12, is granted. Defendant is compelled to provide further responses which include the requested information within 20 days of the date of the scheduled hearing on this matter. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to Request for Production Nos. 13-15. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.
Procedural Background
On May 6, 2025, Plaintiff Martha Maldonado filed her Complaint against Defendant Lotus Hotels-Mill Valley, LLC, alleging that she was sexually harassed when she worked as a housekeeper at one of Defendant’s hotels, the Holiday Inn Express-Mill Valley (the “Hotel”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on April 26, 2025, Doe 1 was an extended stay guest at the Hotel and engaged in unlawful sexual misconduct after luring Plaintiff into his room under the pretext of needing soap. Plaintiff alleges that while Defendant asked the guest to leave, it then retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting the incident because expelling Doe 1 resulted in a loss of revenue to the Hotel. Plaintiff asserts claims for, among other things, sexual harassment, constructive termination, and wage and hour violations.
On October 28, 2025, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendant which included Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. After the parties agreed to an extension of Defendant’s deadline to respond, Defendant served responses on January 6, 2026.
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 and Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) Nos. 9-15, and requests an award of sanctions against Defendant.
Defendant’s Discovery Responses
Special Interrogatories
Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 1 seeks the identity of Doe 1 and No. 2 asks for the dates that Doe 1 was booked to stay at the Hotel from April 1-May 30, 2025. In response to these interrogatories, Defendant objected on the grounds that the interrogatories implicate a hotel guest’s privacy rights as well as the privacy and confidentiality interests inherent in hotel guest records. Defendant objected to No. 2 on the additional ground that it sought information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
RFPs
Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 9-15 seek all documents related to Doe 1 (No. 9), all complaints related to Doe 1 (No. 10), all communications between Doe 1 and Defendant (No. 11), all documents related to the ejection of Doe 1 from the Hotel on April 26, 2025 (No. 12), all documents related to any investigation conducted by Defendant into Plaintiff’s allegation about Doe 1 (No. 13), any report to a law enforcement agency relating to Plaintiff’s allegation (No. 14), and all documents relating to complaints by any employee or contractor about Doe 1 (No. 15).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
In response to Request Nos. 9-12, Defendant objected on the grounds that the requests implicate a hotel guest’s privacy rights as well as the privacy and confidentiality interests inherent in hotel guest records. Defendant also objected to these requests on the grounds that the requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome, and that they seek information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objected to the word “you” in Request No. 11 and the word “ejection” in Request No. 12 on the ground that the words were vague and ambiguous.
In response to Request No. 13, Defendant objected that the term “lewd act” is vague and ambiguous but then responded that it had made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and will produce all documents in its possession, custody or control responsive to the request. In response to Request No. 14, Defendant objected to the terms “lewd act” and “report”, and also on the grounds that the request is overbroad and requests information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendant responded that it had made a reasonable search and reasonable inquiry and has no documents in its possession, custody or control responsive to this request. In response to Request No. 15, Defendant objects that the request is duplicative of Request No. 10, the request implicates a hotel guest’s and Defendant’s employees’ and contractors’ privacy rights, and the request is overbroad. Defendant further responds that it has made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and has no documents in its possession, custody or control responsive to this request, as no such documents are believed to have existed except Plaintiff’s report from April 26, 2025 which has been produced.
Discussion
Special Interrogatories
Defendant states it has not provided responsive information because it needs a court order to do so under Civil Code Section 53.5(a), which provides: “Notwithstanding any other law, except as specified in this section, an innkeeper, hotelkeeper, motelkeeper, lodginghouse keeper, or owner or operator of an inn, hotel, motel, lodginghouse, or other similar accommodations, or any employee or agent thereof . . . shall not disclose, produce, provide, release, transfer, disseminate, or otherwise communicate, except to a California peace officer, all or any part of a guest record orally, in writing, or by electronic or any other means to a third party without a court-issued subpoena, warrant, or order.” “Guest record” is defined as including “any record that identifies an individual guest, boarder, occupant, lodger, customer, or invitee, including, but not limited to, their name, social security number or other unique identifying number, date of birth, location of birth, address, telephone number, driver’s license number, other official form of identification, credit card number, or automobile license plate number.” (Civ.
Code § 53.5(c).) Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Nos. 1 and 2 is granted. The identity of the guest and the length of his stay is clearly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and outweighs any purported privacy right of the guest in this information. Defendant has not met its burden in justifying its objections, including both privacy and relevancy. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220– 221.) By granting Plaintiff’s motion, the Court gives the parties the court order needed for Defendants to provide the requested information.
RFPs
Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP Nos. 9-12 is granted. Plaintiff has established good cause for these requests, which seek documents related to Doe 1, complaints related to Doe 1, communications between Doe 1 and Defendant, and documents related to the ejection of Doe 1 from the Hotel on April 26, 2025. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Defendant has not met its burden in justifying its objections. Indeed, Defendant is completely silent about its objections except for the objection it states it is obligated to assert under Section 53.5.
Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to RFP Nos. 13-15 as Defendant has already provided substantive responses to those requests and Plaintiff does not challenge the adequacy of those responses in her motion.
Sanctions
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. Defendants were substantially justified in requiring a court order before producing information, as contemplated in Civil Code Section 53.5.
All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.
The Zoom appearance information for May, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1 Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070
If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov
4