WILLIAMSPORT - A federal judge won't let a tour company out of a lawsuit that pins blame on it for the alleged rape of a 16-year-old in a hotel in Spain - yet - but also won't let the girl conduct her deposition remotely.
Parents of the alleged victim, referred to as L.F. in court documents, sued EF Educational and supposedly related entities, claiming negligence and breach of contract. L.F. was part of a group of students from California who visited Madrid in June 2022.
Allegedly, EF failed to separate students by gender when assigning hotel rooms. Defendant D.T.'s room was next to L.F.'s, the suit says while claiming EF Educational should have had females on one floor of the hotel and males on another.
"(D)espite the vulnerable age of these minor travelers, there was no implanting or enforcing safety rules in the hotel for the minor travelers, such as curfews or prohibiting minor travelers of one sex from being in the rooms of minor travelers of the opposite sex," the suit says.
L.F. claimed she was dragged into D.T.'s room and sexually assaulted. D.T. was arrested and charged with assault.
EF Education claimed the suit failed to state a claim when it filed a motion to dismiss on April 3. It argued the named defendants don't exist and can't be sued, while L.F. argued it was too early to decide that issue.
"Given the early stage of this litigation and the reasonableness of Plaintiff's request that she be able to conduct corporate designee depositions before agreeing to the voluntary dismissal of the two challenged EF Defendants, this court agrees that dismissal of any of the named EF Defendants is premature at this juncture," Judge Karoline Mehalchick wrote Oct. 21.
The EF defendants had asked Mehalchick to take notice of a lack of records supporting EF Education Tours and EF Education First International as legal entities, "the evidence submitted by Plaintiff in support of her position creates a question of fact as to whether these entities exist or not," Mehalchick wrote, adding discovery is needed.
Once that is complete, EF defendants can refile their motion, if they want to.
L.F. had asked for a protective order from having to travel to Pennsylvania for her deposition, arguing it would protect her from "unnecessary oppression, burden and expense." Lawyers for her alleged attacker fought this motion by claiming they intend to present dozens of exhibits, which would be burdensome on a remote platform.
"The Court understands that Plaintiff is a student and that traveling to Pennsylvania is inconvenient given her home in California," Mehalchick wrote.
"However, Plaintiff chose to bring her suit in Pennsylvania and has failed to present a 'particularized showing' of the burden being compelled to travel for her deposition would cause her.
"Plaintiff has likewise failed to describe the type of 'extreme hardship' she anticipates would result from an in-person deposition in Pennsylvania."
The plaintiffs are represented by Susan B. Ayres of Hill & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Brian J. Bluth of McCormick Law Firm in Williamsport, Edwin A.D. Schwartz and John Michael Arose of McNees Wallace & Nurick in Harrisburg and Jeffrey P. Allen of Lawson & Weitzen, in Boston.