DOE vs ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS (MARYLAND) LLC, et al.

Page 6 of the Notice cites to eight different provisions of CCP § 2025.010 et seq., only one of which, § 2025.450, authorizes discovery motion practice. § 2025.450(a) provides:

“(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to 24CV067346: DOE vs ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS (MARYLAND) LLC, et al. 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition and/or Document Production; filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff) CRS# 692099530309 in Department 512 appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

The Court summarily DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (“MTC”) with respect to Document Requests Nos. 1-20 to Accor and Document Requests Nos. 1-16 and 18-20 to SMI as premature.

Defendants’ respective objections to these requests do not state that either of Defendants will not produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control at deposition based on its asserted objections. Further, Plaintiff presents no evidence in her moving depositions that a deposition was conducted at which either of Defendants refused to produce responsive documents in each Defendant’s possession, custody or control on the basis of their propounded objections. CCP § 2025.450 does not authorize a ruling on objections served pursuant to § 2025.410 before a deposition has been conducted at which the deponent has refused to produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control or has previously unequivocally stated that it will not produce any responsive documents at the deposition.

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is premature. The only way to compel production of documents prior to deposition are document requests served pursuant to CCP § 2031.010 et seq. and any motion practice pursuant to § 2031.210 et seq. necessary to compel production of responsive documents.

Plaintiff’s MTC Defendants’ PMQ testimony regarding Topics of Examination (“TOE”) Nos. 15 and 16 are summarily DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. Defendants’ respective Objections to these TOE state that notwithstanding the propounded objections each Defendant will produce a witness for examination at deposition regarding these TOE. Thus, any motion to compel is premature under § 2025.450 until a deposition has been conducted and the PMQ refuses to answer specific questions based on any objections served pursuant to § 2025.410.

The Court summarily DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s MTC with respect to TOE Nos. 21-22.

The Moving Separate Statement states that TOE Nos. 21-22 regard a list of documents requested in or produced pursuant to Exhibit B to the relevant deposition notices and that each of Defendants incorporates by reference its § 2025.410 objections to the documents listed in Exhibit B. However, the moving Separate Statement states neither the specific documents listed in Exhibit B or either of Defendant’s objections thereto. Thus, the Moving Separate Statement does not comply with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1345(c) that the Moving Separate Statement “must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.

Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference.” Thus, the Court has no way of knowing whether Defendants have each refused to produce a PMQ to testify regarding TOE Nos. 21-22 without looking

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV067346: DOE vs ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS (MARYLAND) LLC, et al. 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition and/or Document Production; filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff) CRS# 692099530309 in Department 512 outside of the Moving Separate Statement.

Defendants’ respective Objections to TOE Nos. 1, 3-14 and 18 state unequivocally that each of Defendants will not produce a PMQ to testify regarding these TOE. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s MTC is ripe for adjudication as to these TOE.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s MTC with respect to TOE Nos. 1 and 18, as follows. The Court ORDERS each defendant to produce a PMQ to testify regarding any complaints or reports of inappropriate conduct, sexual misconduct or sexual assault regarding defendant Ahern going back to 2002, the specific alleged complaints/reports regarding Arthur in 2024, Cortright in 2017 and other specific incidents reported at the Claremont Resort & Spa in 2003, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, and any other such complaints/reports from 1/1/2012 through the date of filing of the present lawsuit.

The Court does not find persuasive Plaintiff’s argument that because defendant Accor’s pending dispositive motion asserts that there have been no complaints against defendant Ahern in 25 years, Plaintiff should be able to obtain discovery going back to 2002 regarding employees or alleged employees other than Ahern. The Court finds that TOE No. 1 is in this respect unduly burdensome relative to the likelihood that it will produce admissible evidence at trial in this action.

A stipulated Protective Order entered in this action on 2/14/2025. The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer in good faith regarding whether the transcripts of the PMQ depositions ordered herein shall be designated confidential to preserve the privacy rights of individuals who are not parties to this action or to protect any asserted confidential or proprietary information of Defendants.

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s MTC with respect to TOE No. 19 in the Deposition Notice for Accor’s PMQ deposition. Although listed in the Notice of Motion, the Moving Separate Statement does not address TOE No.

19.

The COURT DENIES Plaintiff’s MTC with respect to TOE Nos. 3-4. These TOE appear to seek information about the identity of every woman who received a massage or other services from defendant Ahern at SMI over an apparent 25-year period, presumably so that Plaintiff can contact them to determine if Ahern acted inappropriately to any of them. It is implicit that in light of TOE Nos. 1 and 18, none of these female patrons have reported or complained of inappropriate conduct, sexual misconduct or sexual assault by Ahern.

The Court finds that these non-parties have a privacy right not be contacted by Plaintiff where they have not voluntarily come forward or complained/reported wrongful conduct by Ahern. Although these TOE appear that they could be unduly burdensome, Defendants present no evidence regarding the burden to respond to this discovery and instead solely argue the privacy rights of these non-parties.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s MTC with respect to TOE Nos. 5-14 and 18 but limits

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV067346: DOE vs ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS (MARYLAND) LLC, et al. 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition and/or Document Production; filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff) CRS# 692099530309 in Department 512 the relevant time period to 1/1/2012 to the date of filing of Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free