Demaria v. Target Corporation

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 33 motion to compel. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/24/2016. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
LAURA DEMARIA
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 15-1270

:
TARGET CORPORATION
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Laura Demaria filed a negligence action against
Target

Corporation

for

injuries

allegedly

sustained

when

a

shopping cart entered the down escalator on which she was riding
and struck her.

She claims to have suffered severe personal

injuries and seeks more than $75,000 in damages.

In discovery,

she sought information about incidents at other Target stores,
specifically in Interrogatory No. 10 (describe each time someone
released a shopping cart on a down escalator at any store) and
Interrogatory No. 12 (how were the safety measures at this store
different from those at other stores that had a down escalator
within five feet of a shopping cart transport entrance).

Her

motion also seeks information pursuant to Interrogatory No. 18
(have you received concerns from others as to dangers posed by
the

configuration);

and

Document

Request

No.

27

(seeking

pictures or videos contradicting Plaintiff’s injury claims.)

Resolving discovery disputes involves balancing the broad
scope of discovery as to any nonprivileged matter relevant to a
party’s claim or defense against the burden or expense involved.
Target

has

already

acknowledged

that

the

same

type

of

incident occurred at least a dozen times in the prior five years
at the same store before it happened to Plaintiff, and it has
provided the incident reports.

Plaintiff contends, thus, that

she should get specific information about any other incidents
that occurred at other stores before she was injured, and about
any earlier incidents at the location where she was injured.
Target

contends

that

there

are

numerous

stores

across

the

country that utilize a cart conveyer, but that not all have the
same configuration, and that it would be unduly burdensome to
amass the requested information.
It is premature to conclude that any variations in the
configuration

of

the

escalators

and

cart

transports

make

incidents in other stores irrelevant.

The five year time frame

proposed by Target seems reasonable.

Accordingly, Target will

be required to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 10.
On the other hand, separate response to Interrogatory No. 12
regarding safety measures is overbroad and would require Target
to

undertake

significant

analysis.
2

Plaintiff

will

get

information about the safety measures at stores where incidents
occurred and she can make her own assessment.
Similarly, Target’s argument as to why Interrogatory No. 18
is impermissibly broad has merit and no further response will be
required.
Finally, it appears that Target has adequately responded to
Document Request No. 27 by stating that it currently has no
responsive documents.
Accordingly, it is this 24th day of February, 2016, by the
United

States

District

Court

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED that:
1.

The motion to compel filed by Plaintiff Laura Demaria

(ECF No. 33) BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

Defendant

will

respond

to

Interrogatory No. 10 as to all stores within
the 5 years prior to April 1, 2012; and
b.

Defendant need not respond further

to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 18 and Document
Request No. 27.

3

2.

The

clerk

will

transmit

copies

of

this

Memorandum

Opinion and Order to counsel for the parties.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

4