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

24CV067346: DOE vs ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS (MARYLAND) LLC, et al. 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff) CRS# 764958486506 in Department 512

Tentative Ruling - 06/08/2026 Elizabeth Riles

The Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant Accor Hotels & Resorts (Maryland) LLC's Further Responses and the Production of Documents; And Request for Sanctions filed by Jane Doe on 04/29/2026 is Granted in Part.

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel defendant Accor Hotels & Resorts (Maryland) LLC’s (“Accor” or “Defendant”) Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPD”) Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 34-37, for production of responsive documents and for monetary sanctions (the “Motion to Compel” or “MTC”) is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant shall serve verified Third (or Fourth) Further Responses, responsive documents in Defendant’s possession, custody or control, and a revised privilege log containing sufficient information for Plaintiff to analyze each claim of privilege, to the extent Ordered below, below no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 7/7/2026.

Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually assaulted by massage therapist and defendant Vincent James Ahern (“Ahern”) while receiving a massage at SMI on 9/22/2025.

ANALYIS OF MOTION TO COMPEL

As an initial matter, the moving and opposition papers are unclear as to which are Defendant’s operative set of verified Responses. Plaintiff presents evidence that Defendant’s Third Supplemental Responses served on 10/20/2025 are unverified. (Fiore Dec. ¶ 7.) Defendant in Opposition presents no evidence that it served a verification for its Third Supplement Responses. Unverified Responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Sup.Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Moreover, even if the Third Amended Responses were verified and although they appear to waive Defendant’s previously objections, the Third Amended Responses do not contain a statement of compliance or a representation of Defendant’s inability to comply pursuant to CCP § 2031.210(a). (See also § 2031.230.)

Thus, Defendant’s Second Further Responses appear to be the operative Responses for purposes of this Motion.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s request for a verified further Response to RFPD No.

3. However, the Court limits this request to any contracts, agreements and licenses between Accor and defendant Sonoma Mission Inn Management Company LLC (“SMI”) in effect at any time between 1/1/2012 and the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action. The Court finds merit to Defendant’s objections that the term “relating to the organizational structure and legal relationship” to be vague and ambiguous and limits this RFPD accordingly. As narrowed, the Court OVERRULES all of Defendant’s objections except as to attorney-client and attorney work 24CV067346: DOE vs ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS (MARYLAND) LLC, et al. 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff) CRS# 764958486506 in Department 512 product privileges.

Defendant presents no evidence in opposition to support a claim of undue burden or expense, and there is a stipulated Protective Order on file in this action that will allow Defendant to mark documents as confidential. However, Defendant may redact dollar amounts from any documents produced. (See Moving MPA at p. 8:20-21.)

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Request for a verified further Response to RFPD No. 5, but limits the request to documents regarding the policies and procedures for licensure, certification or permitting of massage therapists at the SMI in effect at any time between 1/1/2012 and the date of filing Plaintiff’s complaint in this action. As narrowed, the Court OVERRULES all of Defendant’s objections except as to attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Request for a verified further Response to RFPD No.

6. However, the Court limits RFPD No. 6 to documents regarding policies or procedures for conducting background checks or reference checks for employees of Accor or SMI in effect between the time of Ahern’s hiring by either Accor or SMI until the filing Plaintiff’s complaint in this action. As narrowed, the Court OVERRULES all of Defendant’s objections except as to attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Request for verified further Responses to RFPD Nos. 8-9, but limits these RFPD to documents regarding policies, procedures or rules at SMI’s hotel, spa and/or resort regarding any of massage therapists, massage services, sexual conduct, or sexual misconduct in effect at any time between 1/1/2012 and the date of filing of Plaintiff’s complaint. As narrowed, the Court OVERRULES all of Defendant’s objections except as to attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Request for a verified further Response to RFPD No. 11, but limits this RFPD to documents regarding policies, procedures or duties in effect at any time between 1/1/2012 and the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint. As narrowed, the Court OVERRULES all of Defendant’s objections except as to attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Request for verified Further Responses to RFPD Nos. 34-37. However, the Court limits these requests as to employees, agents, etc of SMI and Accor, other than Ahern, to the period from 1/1/2012 until the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint. As narrowed, the Court OVERRULES all of Defendant’s objections except as to attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions. The Court finds that Defendant was substantially justified in objecting to the 24-year time period and the scope of Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

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 Further Discovery Responses filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff) CRS# 764958486506 in Department 512

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