Balderas v. Target Corporation
Filing
43
OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS 35 Motion to Extend Discovery and 36 Motion to Compel. The fact discovery deadline is EXTENDED to 1/31/2019, and ORDERS Defendant to provide information requested by Plaintiff, as described in the order, bef ore the expiration of the deadline. Plaintiff to file by 1/9/2019, an itemization of its costs and fees incurred in making the motion to compel, as outlined. Defendants to respond by 1/23/2019, and Plaintiff to file a reply, if any, by 1/30/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 12/20/2018. (tc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
CHRISTIAN BALDERAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 2:17-CV-270-JEM
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Extend Discovery [DE 35] and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel [DE 36], filed by Plaintiff on November 27, 2018. On December 10, 2018,
Defendant filed responses to the motions, and on December 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed replies. Plaintiff
requests that the Court compel certain information requested in discovery and extend the fact
discovery deadline.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the scope of discovery is “any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . . Relevant information need not be
admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy is “construed broadly to encompass any
matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that
is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citing
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). A party may seek an order to compel discovery when
an opposing party fails to respond to discovery requests or provides evasive or incomplete
responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party objecting to the discovery request bears the burden
of showing why the request is improper. See McGrath v. Everest Nat’l Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 660,
670 (N.D. Ind. 2008). The Court has broad discretion when determining matters related to discovery.
Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Eng’rs, Inc., 755
F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); Rennie v. Dalton, 3 F.3d 1100, 1110 (7th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he slipped and fell on a substance on the floor at one of
Defendant’s stores. Plaintiff requests discovery he claims will help determine whether Defendant
had notice of the substance on the floor prior to his fall. In particular, Plaintiff seeks vendor logs to
identify why a vendor might have delivered products that match the substance described by Plaintiff
as being on the floor where she fell, a floor plan of the store premises indicating where the
surveillance cameras were located at the time of the event, and access to the live surveillance feed
to determine which of the cameras are recording video.
Defendant objects to the requested discovery. It contends that the only issue in this case is
whether Plaintiff has evidence that the store had notice or should have had notice of the substance
alleged to be on the floor, and that the discovery sought by Plaintiff will not demonstrate that it had
notice. It argues that the fact that vendor logs might give information about a hazard is speculation,
that since its representative testified that there was no camera in the immediate area of the incident
information about camera locations is not relevant, and that a live feed now will not demonstrate
whether there was a substance on the floor at the time of the incident. However, the question before
the Court is not whether the requests will definitely lead to admissible evidence, but whether the
information requested reasonably bears on an issue in the case. Plaintiff’s requests for information
about the location of cameras, the view available from the cameras, and who might have been in the
area of the incident are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Much
of Defendant’s argument is that Plaintiff does not have any evidence to meet its burden of proving
notice, but at this stage in the proceedings, it is appropriate to allow Plaintiff to attempt to discover
2
the evidence in support of his case, and Plaintiff has given clear reasons for why he believes the
requested discovery is relevant to building his case.
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s requests amount to a fishing expedition and are unduly
burdensome, but, other than calling the requests burdensome and intrusive, does not explain that
obtaining the information is particularly expensive, for example, or that there are specific logistical
challenges, or otherwise give any information for the Court to conclude that it has met its burden
of showing that the requests are improper.
Plaintiff also requests an extension of the discovery deadlines in this case. The fact discovery
deadline was November 2, 2018, and Plaintiff represents that the parties scheduled the deposition
of an important Rule 30(b)(6) representative for a date after the close of discovery. In addition,
Plaintiff represents that he requested other discovery prior to the expiration of the deadline, but that
the parties were unable to reach resolution of the dispute, necessitating the Motion to Compel.
Defendant objects to the requested extension.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a
specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: . . . (A) before the original time or
its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act
because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). To determine whether the neglect was
excusable, the
Court must “tak[e] into consideration all relevant circumstances including the danger of prejudice
to the non-moving party, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the
reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and
whether the movant acted in good faith.” Marquez v. Mineta, 424 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir. 2005)
3
(quotations and citations omitted).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not shown excusable neglect for failing to request the
extension before the deadline expired. However, Plaintiff explains that the parties agreed to schedule
at least one deposition after the discovery deadline, Plaintiff may need follow-up information from
that deposition, and Plaintiff is still seeking discovery from Defendant that was requested prior to
the deadline. In addition, time is now needed for Defendant to provide the information as ordered
herein. The Court concludes that the relatively brief delay between the deadline and the requested
extension, coupled with the ongoing interaction between the parties to resolve outstanding discovery
requests, was due to excusable neglect, and that there is good cause for an extension of the deadline.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Extend Discovery [DE
35] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [DE 36]. The Court ORDERS that the fact discovery deadline
is extended to January 31, 2019, and ORDERS Defendant to provide the information requested
by Plaintiff, as described above, before the expiration of the deadline.
Because the motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be
heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion . . . to pay the movant’s
reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(A). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file, on or before January 9, 2019, an
itemization of its costs and fees incurred in making the motion to compel, along with argument as
to why those expenses are reasonable in this situation, with Defendants to respond on or before
January 23, 2019, and Plaintiff to file a reply, if any, on or before January 30, 2019.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2018.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:
All counsel of record
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?