Myers v. Casino Queen, Inc.

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel [Doc. # 55 ] is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall have until July 16, 2013, answer Interrogatories 9 and 10 and produce all documents responsive to Requests for Production 8 and 9 as set forth above. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 07/01/2013. (DJO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARK MYERS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CASINO QUEEN, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 4:11-CV-1273 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s
responses to interrogatories and requests for production.

Defendant has filed a

response in opposition to the motion.
I.

Background

Plaintiff Mark Myers was robbed and assaulted at his home in St. Louis County
by two men who followed him as he left defendant’s gambling establishment. Plaintiff
alleges that the two men were observed on defendant’s surveillance cameras “openly
stalking” him while he was in the casino. As relevant to the parties’ discovery dispute,
plaintiff alleges that several other casino customers have been followed from the
premises and robbed, assaulted, or murdered. He further alleges that other violent
crimes have occurred in the area surrounding the casino.

Despite the alleged

prevalence of criminal behavior generally and against casino guests in particular,
plaintiff alleges, defendant fails to take adequate security measures to protect its
customers. Plaintiff brings claims of negligence and premises liability.
Plaintiff challenges defendant’s responses to two interrogatories and two
requests for production which ask defendant to identify, from January 1, 2003 to the

present, crimes occurring against Casino Queen patrons on defendant’s property
(Interrogatory 9 and Request for Production 8) and within a 25-mile radius of the
property (Interrogatory 10 and Request for Production 9).

For each such crime,

plaintiff seeks the names and contact information for the involved patrons, the type of
crime involved, and a copy of internal reports regarding the incidents.
II.

Discussion

“Liberal discovery is provided for the sole purpose of assisting in the preparation
and trial, or the settlement, of litigated disputes.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467
U.S. 20, 34 (1984). As long as the parties request information or documents relevant
to the claims at issue in the case, and such requests are tendered in good faith and are
not unduly burdensome, discovery shall proceed. M. Berenson Co., Inc. v. Faneuil Hall
Marketplace, Inc., 103 F.R.D. 635, 637 (D. Mass. 1984).
The party resisting production bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy
or undue burden. Oleson v. Kmart Corp., 175 F.R.D. 560, 565 (D. Kan. 1997) (“The
objecting party has the burden to substantiate its objections.”)

The party must

demonstrate to the court “that the requested documents either do not come within the
broad scope of relevance defined pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) or else are of such
marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh
the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.” Burke v. New York City Police
Department, 115 F.R.D. 220, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Further, the “mere statement by
a party that the interrogatory [or request for production] was ‘overly broad,
burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant’ is not adequate to voice a successful
objection.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Financial Corp., 198 F.R.D.

-2-

508, 511-12 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (citing Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d
Cir. 1982)).
Defendant objects that the information regarding criminal activity on and around
its premises is not relevant because plaintiff was attacked at his home several miles
away from the casino. A business owner may be liable for the violent acts of third
parties to invitees where “a reasonable person could have foreseen that injuries of the
type suffered would be likely to occur under the circumstances.” L.A.C. ex rel. D.C. v.
Ward Parkway Shopping Ctr. Co., L.P., 75 S.W.3d 247, 258 (Mo. 2002) (en banc)
(citation omitted). Here, plaintiff alleges generally that defendant had knowledge that
its patrons were the victims of crimes and specifically that he was being “stalked” on
its premises. Information regarding the prevalence of criminal activity against casino
patrons is relevant to plaintiff’s claims and defendant’s relevance objection is
overruled.
However, the Court believes that plaintiff’s requests are overly broad to the
extent that they pertain to “other crimes of Casino Queen patrons.” The category of
“other crimes” could conceivably include automobile thefts, vandalism, and other
offenses that have no relevance to the issues in this case. The Court will allow plaintiff
to obtain information regarding robberies, assaults, and other crimes of violence
committed against casino patrons. Defendant will be directed to answer interrogatories
and produce documents in its possession with respect to such crimes, regardless of
where the crime occurred. However, the defendant’s obligation to comply is limited to
an examination of its own records, and it is not required to examine public records in
order to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. The defendant has not sufficiently
demonstrated that producing the information for the 10-year time period covered by

-3-

the requests would be unduly burdensome. Thus, the Court will not limit the temporal
scope of the requests.
Finally, plaintiff seeks the names and contact information of casino patrons who
were victims of crime. Because plaintiff has not offered any reason for seeking this
information, the request is denied. Furthermore, the defendant may redact such
identifying information from any documents it produces.
Plaintiff complains that defendant relied on boilerplate or general objections.
Defendant made specific objections to the discovery requests at issue and plaintiff’s
request to strike general objections is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. #55] is
granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall have until July 16, 2013,
answer Interrogatories 9 and 10 and produce all documents responsive to Requests
for Production 8 and 9 as set forth above.

___________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of July, 2013.

-4-