Temptesta v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 11 ) is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part. Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. shall produce any additional documents responsive to Request for Production number 16 (as outlined above) no later than September 30, 2015. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on September 18, 2015. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSEPH TEMPESTA,
Plaintiff,
v.

MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC. ,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-7 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery. (ECF No.
11 ). Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. ("Marriott") filed its Suggestions in Opposition of
Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery ("response"; ECF No. 15). Plaintiff Joseph Tempesta
("Tempesta") has not filed a reply but the time for filing a reply has expired. See E.D.Mo. L.R.
4.0l(C).

LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, " [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense- including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of
persons who know of any discoverable matter." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). The Federal rules further
provide for limits on discovery requests. Specifically,

the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by
these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party
seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by
discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in

controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii); Halbach v.

Great-W Life & Annuity Ins.

Co., No.

4:05CV02399 ERW, 2007 WL 2702651, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 12, 2007). Rule 37 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to compel discovery.

DISCUSSION

In his Petition, Tempesta alleges that he, as a business invitee, fell on uneven walkway
steps at a Marriott. (ECF No. 2). In his Motion to Compel, Tempesta contends that Marriott has
failed to adequately answer five discovery requests.
A. Request for Production No. 9

In Request for Production number 9, Tempesta requests documents relating to a third
party who owned, possessed, or maintained the scene of the accident. Marriott objected because
the management agreement contains confidential and proprietary information. Tempesta claims
that Marriott has refused to produce responsive documents despite the party's confidentiality
agreement. In response, Marriott states that it has agreed to produce the management agreement
at issue, subject to a confidentiality agreement.

Therefore, Marriott claims there is no

outstanding dispute.
The Court finds that Marriott has sufficiently responded to this Request for Production by
producing the management agreement. Moreover, Tempesta has not filed a reply to dispute that
this issue has been mooted by production of the management agreement. The Court denies the
Motion to Compel as to Request for Production number 9.
B. Request for Production No. 14

-2-

Tempesta requests a copy of Marriott' s policies and procedures for reporting and/or
responding to injuries at the time of his fall. In response, Marriott objected that this request
sought information not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because Tempesta
did not notify Marriott that he had fallen until several days after the fall allegedly occurred.
Marriott argues that Tempesta has not made a threshold showing of relevance as to why
discovery on Request for Production number 14 should be allowed when Tempesta did not report
the incident until several days after it occurred.
The Court finds that Tempesta has not demonstrated that Marriott accident reporting
policies are relevant, given that Tempesta did not notify Marriott regarding his accident for
several days. The Court denies the Motion to Compel as to Request for Production number 14.
C. Request for Production No. 15
In Request for Production number 15, Tempesta requests "[a]ll policies and procedures
related to ensuring the safety of patrons." Tempesta agreed to limit this request to the area where
he fell , but Tempesta claims that Marriott has neither withdrawn its objections nor produced
documents. In response, Marriott contends that the request does not describe the items sought
with "reasonable particularity" and is overly broad such that it "encompasses numerous Marriott
departments and policies." 1 Further, Marriott argues that Tempesta has not made a threshold
showing of relevant regarding why discovery on Request for Production number 15 should be
allowed.
The Court orders Marriott to produce all policies and procedures related to ensuring the
safety of patrons in the area where Tempesta fell. Policies related to ensuring the safety of
patrons is related to Tempesta' s claim that Marriott did not use ordinary care to prevent the
1

In its argument regarding Request for Production 15, Marriott mistakenly cites to the language
for Request for Production 16. See ECF No. 15, ~9 .
-3-

uneven walkway that allegedly injured him. The Court finds that this request is relevant and
reasonably related to Tempesta' s claim for liability against Marriott, and grants the Motion to
Compel as to Request for Production number 16.
D. Request for Production No. 16
In Request for Production number 16, Tempesta requests all policies and procedures
related to inspecting the area where Tempesta fell. Marriott objected because the request was
"vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not tailored to the issue in this case."
In its response, Marriott states that it advised Tempesta that there are no documents responsive to
this request
The Court finds that there is no outstanding dispute regarding Request for Production
number 16. Marriott has indicated that it does not have responsive documents. The Court denies
the Motion to Compel as to Request for Production number 16.
E. Request for Production No . 19
In Request for Production number 19, Tempesta requests " [a]ll documentation of
consumer injuries related to falls at Defendant's premises."

Tempesta agreed to limit this

request to the area where Tempesta fell. In response, Marriott indicated that it has produced the
only incident report from one other fall that occurred on the patio in question.
The Court finds that there is no outstanding dispute regarding Request for Production
number 19. Marriott has indicated that it has produced the incident report. The Court denies the
Motion to Compel as to Request for Production number 19.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 11)
is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part. Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. shall

-4-

produce any additional documents responsive to Request for Production number 16 (as outlined
above) no later than September 30, 2015.

~/~

Dated this 18th day of September, 2015.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-