Arterburn v. Home Depot USA Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 21, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00408
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 CLYDE A. ARTERBURN, an individual, CASE NO. C22-0408 RSM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ON LCR 37(a)(2) 10 SUBMISSION v. 11 HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. dba/aka Home 12 Depot, a Foreign Corporation, 13 Defendant.

14 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ “LCR 37(a)(2) Submission Regarding 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Notice and Deposition,” Dkt. #20. “Parties may obtain discovery 16 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 17 proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the 18 action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 19 resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 20 expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The 21 party that resists discovery has the burden to show why the discovery request should be denied. 22 Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). After reviewing the briefing and 23 attached declarations, the Court ORDERS as follows: 24 1 1. Topic No. 4: The purpose of the extruding pipe involved in this incident and reason for its placement at that location in the Home Depot Store. 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Plaintiff tripped over a metal basket which was placed 3 over the extruding pipe. Dkt. #1-1 ¶ 8. Although some evidence gathered so far indicates 4 Plaintiff did not trip over the pipe, Plaintiff is permitted to ask questions on this topic 5 because this inquiry is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims as alleged in the Complaint and it is 6 proportional to the needs of the case. 7 2. Topic No. 5: Whether the extruding pipe involved in this incident, and its location 8 in this Home Depot, is part of the standard construction of Home Depot Stores. 9 The Court agrees it would be unduly burdensome for Home Depot to prepare a response 10 on the “standard construction” of its stores. Furthermore, Home Depot has apparently 11 answered Plaintiff’s request: “There is no ‘standard construction’ where each Home Depot 12 store is identical.” Dkt. #20 at 6. 13 3. Topic No. 7: Surveillance camera locations in this Hope Depot, specifically the 14 location of the cameras in the area where Plaintiff fell. This topic includes the 15 location of cameras in that area in 2020 and whether those cameras have been 16 moved since then. 17 The Court agrees that Plaintiff is permitted to inquire on the location of the cameras in the 18 area where Plaintiff allegedly fell at the time of the incident and subsequent changes to 19 cameras in that location. Such is relevant, tailored, and proportional to the needs of this 20 case. 21 4. Topic No. 8: The identi[ty] of all people involved in the maintenance and 22 operation of the surveillance camera system at Home Depot at the time of this 23 incident. 24 1 The parties have inadequately briefed this topic. However, given the information submitted, the Court agrees that Plaintiff is permitted to inquire on this topic. 2 5. Topic No. 9: The identity of all people responsible for setting the location of 3 surveillance cameras at this Home Depot at the time of this incident. 4 The parties have again inadequately briefed this topic. It strikes the Court that the 5 identities of the people responsible for setting camera locations is a topic too far removed 6 from what could be relevant to the existing claims. There is no allegation that the camera 7 locations or subsequent inadequate investigation led to a cause of action for Plaintiff. 8 Plaintiff is permitted to inquire on this topic. 9 6. Topic No. 13: The location of designated walkways in this Home Depot from 2020 10 through present, and any steps taken by Home Depot to communicate that 11 information to customers and employees. 12 The request is vague and lacks reasonable particularity. It is unclear how a 30(b)(6) 13 deponent could answer this question. Information concerning “designated walkways” may 14 be a matter for expert testimony. Plaintiff is permitted to inquire on this topic. 15 7. Topic No. 17: Home Depot’s position and/or opinion as to how this incident 16 occurred. 17 Home Depot’s 30(b)(6) deponent does not have factual information about how this 18 incident occurred. The 30(b)(6) deponent’s knowledge of Home Depot’s legal strategy on 19 how to defend this case is not discoverable and is protected by the work product doctrine. 20 See Schreib v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 304 F.R.D. 282, 288 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (holding 21 that “the work product doctrine applies to the disputed Rule 30(b)(6) topics only to the 22 extent that [Plaintiff]’s questions would require the deponent to divulge “mental 23 impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories” that [Defendant]’s attorneys or 24 1 agents formed after [Defendant] received [Plaintiff]’s IFCA notice.”) (Emphasis added). Plaintiff is permitted to inquire on this topic. 2 8. Topic No. 18: All other trip and fall incidents occurring near the exit where 3 Plaintiff fell, at this Home Depot, for the three years prior to this incident through 4 the present. 5 Home Depot argues it has already identified trip and fall incidents near the exit where 6 Plaintiff allegedly fell for three years prior to this incident. However, “[i]t is a regular and 7 common practice to follow up on written discovery responses at deposition.” Corker v. 8 Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C19-0290RSL, 2020 WL 6874480, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 9 23, 2020). Such is not unduly burdensome and Plaintiff is permitted to inquire on this 10 topic. 11 9. Topic No. 19: Home Depot’s investigation of this incident, prior to filing this 12 lawsuit. 13 Home Depot is free to object to specific questions on this topic based on the work product 14 doctrine or attorney client privilege and Plaintiff is free to tailor his questions to avoid 15 those problems. Plaintiff is permitted to inquire on this topic. 16 10. Topic No. 26: Home Depot’s system for filing and indexing documents and/or 17 electronically stored data regarding customer injury events occurring at its store 18 locations. 19 Plaintiff’s Complaint has not alleged any deficiencies in Home Depot’s filing and 20 indexing system regarding customer injury events. Inquiry on this topic is not likely to 21 lead to the discovery of relevant evidence in this case. Plaintiff shall refrain from asking 22 these questions. 23

24 1 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff is permitted to inquire into Topic Nos. 4, 7, 8, 18, and 19 as 2 stated above. 3

4 DATED this 21st day of April, 2023. 5 6 7 A 8 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24