Fernandez-Valdez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER Granting Defendant's 22 Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10

SONIA FERNANDEZ-VALDEZ,

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to requests

16

for production. Docket No. 22. Plaintiff filed a response and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos.

17

24, 26. The Court finds this motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-1.

18

For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel.

19

I.

11

Plaintiff(s),

12
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
13
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:16-cv-02464-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 22)

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff initiated this personal injury action in state court on August 17, 2016. Docket No.

21

1-1. On October 21, 2016, Defendant removed the action to this Court. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff

22

alleges that she slipped on a liquid substance and fell at one of Defendant’s stores in Las Vegas,

23

Nevada on October 1, 2015. Docket No. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant was at

24

fault and that she suffered damages, including but not limited to bodily injury, pain and suffering,

25

and mental anguish. Id. at 2-3. Defendant submits that the circumstances of Plaintiff’s slip and fall

26

are suspect. See, e.g., Docket No. 22 at 2-3. At issue in the instant motion are four requests for

27

production to which Plaintiff objects. See, e.g., id. at 4-5; Docket No. 22-2 at 47-49.

28

1

II.

ANALYSIS

2

When a party fails to provide requested discovery, the requesting party may move to compel

3

that discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit

4

or deny discovery.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Parties are permitted to

5

seek discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The party seeking to avoid discovery bears the burden of explaining why

7

discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Carr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 312 F.R.D. 459, 469

8

(N.D. Tex. 2015) (addressing burdens following 2015 amendments to the discovery rules).

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

On January 24, 2017, Defendant propounded the following Requests for Production:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: All documents relating to any claims
made or benefit or compensation received because of injuries resulting from the
Incident.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: All documents relating to any claims
made or benefit or compensation received because of any injuries or accidents either
before or after the Incident.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: All documents relating to any claims for
federal and state governmental assistance, including but not limited to Medicaid,
Social Security Disability benefits, and Supplemental Security Income, which you
claimed or obtained resulting from the injuries you claimed to have suffered from the
Incident.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: All documents relating to a claim for
pension, unemployment, income replacement insurance benefits, and private
disability benefits which you sought or obtained resulting from the injuries you claim
to have suffered from the Incident.

19
20

Docket No. 22-2 at 10-11.

21

Defendant submits that the damages Plaintiff claims are inconsistent with the severity of the

22

slip and fall, and with information she gave medical professionals in its immediate aftermath. See,

23

e.g., Docket No. 22 at 3. Therefore, Defendant submits, it needs this discovery in order to determine

24

whether Plaintiff had any preexisting conditions before the slip and fall and whether it actually

25

caused extensive damage to her body. See, e.g., id. at 6. Plaintiff responds that “Defendant has

26

shown no relevance to the information requested, beyond pure speculation that the requested

27
28

2

1

evidence will somehow prove Plaintiff a liar.” Docket No. 24 at 5. Plaintiff further disputes the

2

admissibility of any documents responsive to these requests for production. See id. at 5-13.

3

Defendant replies that the evidentiary rules Plaintiff cites do not limit discovery and that it seeks

4

relevant information. See Docket No. 26 at 2-6.

5

The Court agrees with Defendant and finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of explaining

6

why discovery should be denied. The Court finds that the documents Defendant seeks are relevant

7

to the causes and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, and proportional to the needs of the case. Further,

8

Plaintiff’s extensive discussion of admissibility is misplaced. See Phoenix Sols. Inc. v. Wells Fargo

9

Bank, N.A., 254 F.R.D. 568, 575 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (Rule 26 “contemplates discovery into any matter

10

that bears on or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on any issue that is or may

11

be raised in a case”) (internal citation omitted); United States EEOC v. Caesars Entm’t, Inc., 237

12

F.R.D. 428, 431 (D. Nev. 2006) (“[R]elevancy under Rule 26 is extremely broad”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

13

26(b) (“Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be

14

discoverable”).

15

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel, Docket No. 22, is hereby GRANTED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: May 12, 2017.

18
19

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3