R. STAN BAKER, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Brian Contino's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 28), to which Defendant has filed a Response (Doc. 30), and the parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 29). The Court held a hearing on these Motions on April 29, 2015. (Doc. 33.) For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing and as supplemented below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery is
In his Motion to Compel Discovery, Plaintiff Brian Contino contends that Defendant has failed to respond, in whole or in part, to certain portions of Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Interrogatories. (Doc. 28, pp. 1-2.) In particular, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant has refused to produce documents or things in approximately thirteen areas and has provided incomplete answers to four interrogatories. (
At the hearing, the Court listed fourteen areas of discovery contentions raised by Plaintiff's Motion, and the parties agreed that this list encapsulated the parties' disputes. Defendant made specific objections in its discovery responses, and mostly stood by those objections at the hearing. Plaintiff also largely stood by its Motion to Compel as to each issue. The Court's ruling on each of the areas of contention is as follows:
As stated on the record at the hearing, the Court declines to delay the production of the store surveillance video any further. Specifically, more than six months have passed since the parties' Rule 26(f) conference on October 28, 2014, and the parties have made virtually no progress on discovery. (
Defendant's counsel has agreed to provide a redacted copy of the incident report to Plaintiff and to submit to the Court the redacted copy as well as a sealed, unredacted copy for in camera inspection. As Defendant's counsel represented at the hearing, it will redact information that consists of work product from the copy produced to Plaintiff. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's Motion on this issue is
Defendant's counsel has indicated a willingness to produce all photographs of the incident scene as an addendum to the redacted incident report; therefore, this portion of Plaintiff's Motion is
Defendant's counsel has represented that all of Defendant's witness statements are contained in the incident report and that Defendant will not redact any statement that is an actual declaration of a witness, without any mental impressions of the preparer. As a result, Plaintiff's Motion is
According to Defendant's counsel, the incident report may include a diagram marking the location of the incident scene within Defendant's store. Defendant's counsel has conceded that such a diagram, if it exists, will not be redacted from the incident report disclosed to Plaintiff. As the undersigned advised at the hearing, if Defendant has any maps or diagrams of the incident scene that are not part of the incident report, it must turn these over to Plaintiff as well. This portion of the Plaintiff's Motion is
Defendant's counsel has expressed uncertainty as to whether Defendant uses picture identification cards for its employees. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, Defendant must produce any identification cards containing the names and photographs of the employees that were working in the store in question at the time of the incident—whether worn by the employees or maintained electronically by Defendant—to the extent that these items exist. Other identifying information, including social security numbers, should be redacted. Plaintiff's Motion as to employee picture identification cards is
Having taken the discovery of Defendant's employees' personnel files under advisement at the hearing, this issue warrants further discussion here. As a general matter, employee personnel files are discoverable under Georgia law.
Plaintiff has demonstrated that the employee personnel files requested are relevant to the primary issue of negligence, in that the files are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence of employee work history admissible to show notice or knowledge of the alleged hazard. (Doc. 28, p. 23.) At the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel also submitted that the personnel files are relevant for impeachment purposes. However, Plaintiff has not established the relevance of, and thus is not entitled to discover, portions of the personnel files containing sensitive personal information. Furthermore, the countervailing privacy interests of the employees warrant limiting the extent of discovery in this regard. Consequently, Defendant shall redact from the produced personnel files irrelevant personal information including, social security numbers; statements of earnings, wages, and withholdings; benefits statements; and medical history.
The employees' privacy interests also warrant the entry of a protective order as to these files. "The [C]ourt may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Good cause exists here, based on Defendants' and its employees' interests in maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of any internal disciplinary reports, performance evaluations, and other records that may be disclosed to Plaintiff in the personnel files.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is
The undersigned also took Plaintiff's discovery request regarding reports from prior incidents under advisement following the hearing. Defendant's reports from other incidents are subject to work-product protection for the same reasons reflected on the record as the incident report involving Plaintiff Megan Contino.
Defendant's objection to the relevance of this request lacks merit. Georgia courts consider evidence of prior incidents in slip-and-fall cases.
Defendant's objection to breadth of this request is negated by Plaintiff's counsel's modification of the request at the hearing. Plaintiff's counsel represented at the hearing that this request is intended to encompass only slip-and-fall incidents. Additionally, the request is sufficiently tailored to incidents occurring at the store in question—which, contrary to Defendant's argument, need not be narrowed to only the floral department—and to the time period of November 3, 2010, through the present. (
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion is
As to Plaintiff's request regarding prior complaints and lawsuits, notwithstanding the initial breadth of Plaintiff's discovery request, his counsel modified this request at the hearing to include only complaints and lawsuits arising out of slip-and-fall incidents at the store in question during the relevant time period. For the reasons stated on the record, and based on the foregoing discussion regarding evidence of other incidents, Plaintiff's Motion, as amended, is
Defendant's counsel has represented that Defendant's procedure for regularly inspecting and maintaining its floors and floral department does not include executing any sweep sheets, logs, repair reports, or other written documentation. Because it appears that these records simply do not exist after a reasonable search, Plaintiff's Motion as to inspection/maintenance reports for the incident site is
At the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel clarified that, his request for prior inspection reports of the premises seeks reports of safety inspections or audits performed by outside parties, such as governmental agencies or insurance carriers, from two years prior to the incident to the present. Defendant's counsel was uncertain, but could not confirm, whether any such records exist for the floral department. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's Motion is
Plaintiff's counsel has limited his discovery request for policies and manuals to include Defendant's policies and manuals relating to inspecting the premises; preventing slip-and-fall incidents; recording, preserving, and deleting surveillance video footage; and providing gift cards to customers after an incident. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's Motion, as modified at the hearing, is
Plaintiff's Motion seeking the production of information regarding Defendant's excess insurance carrier is
Based on Defendant's representation that there have been no substantial changes to the floral department since Plaintiff's incident, this portion of Plaintiff's Motion is
Defendant's counsel has agreed to verify Defendant's interrogatory responses. Plaintiff's Motion is
Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that Defendant's production of the store surveillance video will likely obviate the need for responses to interrogatories requesting the factual bases for Defendant's defenses and its account of the incident. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion as to these interrogatories is DENIED AS MOOT.
The parties' Joint Motion asked the Court to extend the current discovery deadline of June 1, 2015, or, alternatively, to stay the current discovery deadline pending the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc. 29, p. 1.) The parties explained that the discovery issues set forth in Plaintiff's Motion, along with scheduling conflicts, prevented compliance with the current discovery deadline. (
As stated at the hearing, the Court finds that much, if not all, of the delay in this case was preventable. However, in the interests of fairness and just adjudication, the Court finds that an extension is warranted. Therefore, for the reasons stated on the record, the parties' joint Motion is