Murano v. Apple Eight Hospitality Massachusetts, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
FRANCESCO MURANO and
JENNIFER MURANO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE EIGHT HOSPITALITY
MASSACHUSETTS, INC.,
APPLE EIGHT HOSPITALITY
MASSACHUSETTS SERVICES, INC., and
CRESTLINE HOTELS & RESORTS, LLC,
Defendants.
No. 24-cv-12135-DJC
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
LEVENSON, U.S.M.J.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Francesco Murano (“Mr. Murano”) alleges that, while he was a guest at a hotel
operated by Defendants, he fell and was injured when the toilet he was sitting on came loose
from the floor. Mr. Murano and his wife (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit against the hotel owners and
operators for negligence.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery. Docket No. 41. Plaintiffs
move to compel Defendant Crestline Hotels & Resorts, LLC (“Crestline”)—the operator of the
Hotel—to supplement its interrogatory responses, produce all documents responsive to two of its
Requests for Production (“RFPs”), and to produce an adequately prepared Rule 30(b)(6)
designee for deposition. Crestline has submitted an opposition to the motion, Docket No. 43, and
Judge Casper has referred the motion to me, Docket No. 42. For the reasons stated below,
Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.
Case 1:24-cv-12135-DJC Document 46 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 10

2
I. 	Factual Background
Mr. Murano allegedly was injured over four years ago, on January 8, 2022, while staying
at the Residence Inn Marriott (the “Hotel”) in Marlborough, Massachusetts. Docket No. 24 ¶ 7–
9. He claims he was seated on the toilet in his room when it unexpectedly detached from its
mounting (“the Incident”). Id. ¶ 8. Mr. Murano fell, landing on his side and injuring his shoulder,
elbow, and hip. Id. ¶ 9. Following the Incident, a report (the “Incident Report”) was completed
by a Hotel staff member, Plaintiffs were moved to a new hotel room, and the toilet was repaired
by the Hotel’s Chief Engineer, Danny Thomas. See Docket No. 43 at 2, 6, 7. Mr. Thomas has
since died (id. at 2), and the staff member who completed the Incident Report appears to no
longer work for Crestline (see id. at 8).
II. 	Procedural History
Mr. Murano commenced this action in Middlesex Superior Court on July 15, 2024.
Docket No. 1 at 1. In the original complaint, the named defendants were the owners of the Hotel:
Apple Eight Hospitality Massachusetts, Inc. and Apple Eight Hospitality Massachusetts
Services, Inc. (collectively, the “Apple Eight Defendants”). Id. The Apple Eight Defendants
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction, as Plaintiffs are citizens of the state of Florida, and the Apple Eight
Defendants are citizens of Virginia. Id. at 2–3. On February 4, 2025, Mr. Murano amended his
complaint, adding his wife, Jennifer Murano, as a Plaintiff, and adding Crestline as a Defendant.
Docket No. 24. After Crestline was added, the deadline for discovery was extended until
Case 1:24-cv-12135-DJC Document 46 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 10

3
February 27, 2026. Docket No. 39. On February 25, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the present motion.1
Docket No. 41.
III. 	Discussion
A. 	Interrogatory Responses
Plaintiffs demand supplemental answers to two interrogatories regarding the inspection
of, and repairs to, the bathroom following the Incident.
Interrogatory No. 18 asked:
Did Crestline or anyone on its behalf perform after the Incident any inspection of
the area where the Incident occurred. If so, please state: a. in detail what was learned
from any inspection; b. the name, residential address, and business address of each
person, who conducted any inspection.
Docket No. 43 at 6. Crestline responded by referring Plaintiffs to the Incident Report included in
Crestline’s produced documents. Id.
Interrogatory No. 25 asked:
Has Crestline or anyone on its behalf made any changes, alterations, repairs or
improvements to the bathroom and/or toilet where the Incident occurred since
January 8, 2022. If so, please state the following: a. what changes, alterations,
repairs or improvements were made; b. when they were made; c. who made any
such changes, alterations, repairs or improvements.
Docket No. 43 at 6. Crestline responded by stating that “[t]he toilet was repaired the day after the
incident by in-house staff.” Id. at 7.
1 Plaintiffs’ motion, as it appears in the docket has some notable gaps. First, there appear to be
passages missing. Several sentences spanning two pages do not form complete sentences (see,
e.g. Docket 41 at 1–2, 3–4), and there is no section A, although there are sections B, two section
Cs, D, E and IV. See id. at 2–7. Second, exhibits A, B, C, D, and E contain deposition testimony,
responses to RFPs, and answers to interrogatories. Many pages of the exhibits contain redactions
or highlighting that render the text illegible, including the interrogatories and RFPs at issue in
Plaintiffs’ motion. See e.g. id. at 11–15, 35–37, 45–47. I therefore rely on the excerpts in
Crestline’s opposition. Docket No. 43.
Case 1:24-cv-12135-DJC Document 46 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 10

4
Plaintiffs contend that Crestline’s answers to these interrogatories are insufficient. They
argue that Crestline’s representation that the toilet was repaired the day after the incident
suggests that Crestline knows more than it has disclosed. In Plaintiffs’ words, “it necessarily
knows more than that single sentence conveys.” Docket No. 41 at 2. Plaintiffs further assert that
Crestline should be able to identify “what was physically done to the toilet, what parts were
replaced or reinstalled, or which specific employees performed the work.” Id.
Crestline asserts that the only information it has regarding the Incident is contained in its
preventative maintenance/inspection logs, which have been produced. Docket No. 43 at 6.
Crestline states that the individual who completed the toilet repair is believed to be Mr. Thomas,
Crestline’s Chief Engineer, who has since died. Id. at 7. Crestline argues that it cannot produce
more details because there is no further information to provide. Id. at 6.
Crestline has the better of the arguments.
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a party to obtain and produce
information that it neither possesses nor controls." Cont'l W. Ins. Co. v. Opechee Constr. Corp.,
No. 15-CV-006-JD, 2016 WL 1642626, at *3 (D.N.H. Apr. 25, 2016). Plaintiffs’ contention that
Crestline somehow must know more about the aftermath of a relatively minor room repair that
occurred more than four years ago is wholly speculative. While Crestline must produce such
information as it has, it can’t be expected to do more than that. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’
protestations to the contrary, there is nothing improbable or uncreditable about Crestline’s
response. On the record before me, I see no reason to doubt Crestline’s representation that any
knowledge of what transpired has vanished with the employees who were responsible for the
inspection and repair. It seems that the report of incident was written by someone who is no
longer employed by Crestline and that the repair was performed by someone who is now
Case 1:24-cv-12135-DJC Document 46 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 10

5
deceased. Specific details about the repair, such as “what was physically done to the toilet, [or]
what parts were replaced or reinstalled” appear to have been lost to the passage of time.
The existence of the Incident Report confirms that Crestline kept some record of the
Incident but does not imply that further knowledge exists. Crestline cannot be compelled to
produce information it does not possess.
B. 	Requests for Production
Along the same lines, Plaintiffs seek to compel Crestline to produce additional
documents related to the inspection of and repairs to the bathroom sought in RFPs Nos. 2 and 24.
Docket No. 41 at 8.
Request No. 2 sought “all statements, whether written or recorded, taken by or on behalf
of Defendant, Crestline, from any person who inspected, repaired, reinstalled and/or replaced the
toilet involved in the Incident.” Docket No. 43 at 4. Crestline responded by stating “None are in
the possession, custody, or control of the Defendant.” Id.
Request No. 24 sought “all documents relating to any inspection of the bathroom where
the Incident occurred on or since January 8, 2022.” Id. at 5. Crestline responded by stating:
“Please see documents kept in the usual course of business in Defendant’s production of
document response, which are being provided electronically.” Id.
Plaintiffs contend that there must be “statements, work orders, communications, or notes”
from the in-house staff who performed the repair, which would be responsive and would be
within Crestline’s control. Docket No. 41 at 2. Crestline argues that there are no such documents,
and that the maintenance logs already produced are responsive and exhaustive. See Docket No.
43 at 4, 5.
Plaintiffs’ assertions that additional documents outlining the repairs made to the toilet
may exist are speculative. There is nothing before the Court to would suggest that someone
Case 1:24-cv-12135-DJC Document 46 Filed 04/02/26 Page 5 of 10

6
would have prepared a written record detailing the tools used or parts replaced in repairing a
toilet. The Court cannot compel Crestline to produce documents that do not exist. See Yourga v.
City of Northampton, No. 16-CV-30167-MGM, 2018 WL 4268894, at *1 n.2 (D. Mass. Sept. 6,
2018).
Plaintiffs make much of the prejudice they suffer given the death of Mr. Thomas—the
person who most likely fixed the toilet. Docket No. 41 at 3, 6. But if records were not kept
containing the details Plaintiffs seek, Defendants cannot produce them.
C. 	Deposition
Plaintiffs seek to compel Crestline to produce a more adequately prepared Rule 30(b)(6)
designee for continued deposition on five topics. Docket No. 41 at 8.
On January 20, 2026, Mr. Idrees Raja, the General Manager of the Hotel, was deposed.2
Docket No. 41 at 35; Docket No. 43 at 3. Mr. Raja’s deposition lasted forty one minutes. Docket
No. 43 at 9. Mr. Raja was designated to testify on five3 topics related to the condition and
inspections of the toilet:
• 	Topic 13: The condition of the bathroom and toilet at, on, around or about which the
Incident occurred.
• 	Topic 14: Any inspections made of the bathroom and toilet at, on, around or about which
the Incident occurred in the three years prior to January 8, 2022.
• 	Topic 18: Any inspection of the bathroom and/or toilet at, on around or about which the
Incident occurred after Crestline learned of the Incident.
2 On January 8, 2022, the date of the Incident, Mr. Raja was the General Manager of a different
Crestline hotel, and another manager—who no longer works for Crestline—was the General
Manager of the Hotel. Docket No. 43-1 at 2.
3 Plaintiffs’ motion requests a designee for topics 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20, but does not list those
topics. Docket No. 41 at 8. Crestline’s opposition states that Mr. Raja was designated to testify to
six topics, but then recites the same five topics that are in Plaintiffs’ motion. Docket No. 43 at 7-
8. I have considered only the five topics listed in Crestline’s opposition, reproduced here.
Case 1:24-cv-12135-DJC Document 46 Filed 04/02/26 Page 6 of 10

7
• 	Topic 19: The name of any persons who made any inspection of the bathroom and/or
toilet at, on, around or about which the Incident occurred after Defendant learned of the
Incident.
• 	Topic 20: Any alterations, changes, repairs, improvements or remedial measures taken
with respect to the bathroom and/or toilet at, on, around or about which the Incident
occurred after the Incident occurred.
Docket No. 43 at 7–8.
Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Raja was not adequately prepared for the deposition and suggest
that other Crestline employees have more knowledge of the Incident but did not share it with Mr.
Raja. See Docket No. 41 at 4. Specifically, Plaintiffs highlight that Mr. Raja could not identify
who performed the toilet repair, what the repair entailed, or whether the repair occurred the day
of, or the day after the Incident. Id. Crestline contends that it made a good faith effort to prepare
Mr. Raja, and that he was prepared to speak on the topics for which he was designated, but that
there is some information that it does not possess, such as what exactly was repaired. Docket No.
43 at 8. Moreover, Crestline contends, Plaintiffs complain about Mr. Raja’s inability to address
topics that were not designated in the R. 30(b)(6) notice, such as when the repair occurred, and
who performed it. Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) “allows an organization to designate an
individual to ‘testify on its behalf.’” Tr. of Bos. Univ. v. Everlight Electronics Co., No. 12-cv-
11935-PBS, 2014 WL 5786492, at *3 (D. Mass. Sept. 24, 2014) (quoting Dongguk Univ. v. Yale
Univ., 270 F.R.D. 70, 74 (D. Conn. 2010)). When a designee lacks personal knowledge of the
requested information, the organization is required to make a good faith-effort to prepare its
designees so that they can answer questions fully, completely, and unevasively. Briddell v. Saint
Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 233 F.R.D. 57, 60 (D. Mass. 2005). “If necessary, the deponent must use
documents, past employees, and other resources in performing this required preparation.” Id.
“When assessing whether a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent adequately prepared for the deposition,
Case 1:24-cv-12135-DJC Document 46 Filed 04/02/26 Page 7 of 10

8
courts have examined whether the deponent spoke to other employees with relevant information,
reviewed relevant documents, and conferred with the organization's counsel.” Santiago Garcia v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 19-CV-1082 (SCC/BJM), 2020 WL 3669642, at *1 (D.P.R. July 6,
2020) (citing Cooper v. Charter Commc’ns., Inc., 3:12-CV-10530-MGM, 2016 WL 1430012, at
*2 (D. Mass. Apr. 11, 2016)). However, “[i]f a corporation genuinely cannot provide an
appropriate designee because it does not have the information, cannot reasonably obtain it from
other sources and still lacks sufficient knowledge after reviewing all available information, then
its obligations under the Rule cease.” QBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda Enters., Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 690
(S.D. Fla. 2012) (citing Calzaturficio S.C.A.R.P.A. s.p.a. v. Fabiano Shoe Co., 201 F.R.D. 33, 39
(D. Mass. 2001)).
Mr. Raja’s deposition testimony demonstrates that Crestline made a good faith effort to
prepare him regarding the five topics on which he was designated to speak. Mr. Raja stated that
although he did not work at the Hotel at the time of the incident, he had become knowledgeable
about the five designated deposition topics through his review of paperwork that an attorney had
shared with him, and through speaking with the attorney. See Docket No. 43-1 at 3. Mr. Raja
testified that he reviewed the Incident Report and spoke to one of the witnesses listed on the
report, Abid Ali Jemani (another deponent, Docket No. 41 at 40), but that he did not speak to the
housekeeping manager who completed the Incident report, Yesenia Zamora, who no longer
works at the Hotel. Docket No. 43-1 at 7. Mr. Raja testified that he reviewed a General Liability
Claim Reporting Form but did not discuss the form with the individual who filled out the form.
Id. Mr. Raja further testified that he had reviewed maintenance records in preparation for his
deposition and noted that preventative maintenance was typically performed quarterly and had
been performed in November or December of 2021, one to two months prior to the Incident.
Case 1:24-cv-12135-DJC Document 46 Filed 04/02/26 Page 8 of 10

9
Docket No. 43-1 at 8. This preparation and knowledge reflect that Mr. Raja took reasonable steps
to prepare for his testimony as a corporate representative. Because Crestline did not violate its
duty to prepare its Rule 30(b)(6) designee, Plaintiff’s motion to compel another adequately
prepared designee is denied.
Although Mr. Raja answered “I don’t know” to multiple questions, they were primarily in
response to questions that had not been designated as deposition topics. See, e.g. Docket No. 43-
1 at 4 (responding “I don’t know” to questions about the size of the maintenance team, Mr.
Thomas’s title); Docket No. 43-1 at 7 (responding “I don’t know” to questions about whether the
housekeeping manager who completed the Incident report was still working for Crestline, and
how Crestline first became aware of the Incident). Mr. Raja acknowledged that he lacked
knowledge as to the condition of the subject bathroom on the date of the Incident, but – as
discussed above – there is nothing before the Court to suggest that such information is available.
Mr. Raja’s inability to answer certain questions does not reflect a lack of adequate
preparation, but a lack of knowledge available to Crestline. With a deceased chief engineer, and
only one employee still working at the Hotel with information about the Incident four years later,
it is not surprising that the details of the toilet repair have been lost to the passage of time. See
Docket No. 43 at 7, 8.
Case 1:24-cv-12135-DJC Document 46 Filed 04/02/26 Page 9 of 10

10
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the motion is DENIED.4 Both parties to bear their own costs.
/s/ Paul G. Levenson
Paul G. Levenson
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: April 2, 2026
4 The parties are advised that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) or Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 59(a), and under Rule 2(b) of the Rules for United States Magistrate Judges
in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, any party seeking review by
a district judge of these determination(s) and order(s) must serve and file any objections within
14 days of receiving this order, unless a different time is prescribed by the magistrate judge or a
district judge. Such objections must specifically designate the order, or part thereof, to be
modified or set aside and the basis for objection. The district judge will set aside any portion of
the magistrate judge’s order that is found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The parties
are further advised that failing to follow the objection procedures of Rule 2(b) may preclude
further appellate review. See Phinney v. Wentworth Douglas Hosp., 199 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1999);
Sunview Condo. Ass’n v. Flexel Int’l, Ltd., 116 F.3d 962, 964–65 (1st Cir. 1997).
Case 1:24-cv-12135-DJC Document 46 Filed 04/02/26 Page 10 of 10