Debora Preston vs. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order
Villeggiante, Michael

Plaintiff Debora Preston’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order is granted: This action arises out of a January 30, 2011 incident in which Plaintiff was riding on a Greyhound bus traveling from Reno, Nevada to Sacramento, California, when she was attacked by a fellow passenger. The attacker had carried a knife onto the bus, and in the course of the attack, stabbed Plaintiff with the knife.

On November 14, 2013, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and production of documents after ordering the parties to meet and confer to narrow the items in dispute. The Court granted the motion to compel further verified responses and production from Greyhound as to the following categories of documents:

1.

Documents regarding Greyhound’s screening decision at Reno Greyhound’s further response was not verified. If no such additional documents exist beyond what was previously produced, Plaintiff is entitled to a verified further response, in compliance with CCP 2031.230.

2.

Electronically Stored Information – Email

: Granted.

Greyhound’s further response was not verified.

The Court ordered that scope of email information should be limited to the incident and to the employees with knowledge of the incident. Greyhound agreed to provide the emails of Al Smith, Roger Muckle, and Chris Brooks concerning the incident.

Despite this, Greyhound now contends in its opposition that it is “probable” that emails generated at the time of the incident were “rotated out of storage” as early as mid to late 2011. (Declaration of Hand) The incident occurred January 30, 2011. The Complaint was filed on August 11, 2011 and the Answer was filed September 15. 2011. Since it is Greyhound’s policy to electronically place into storage relevant documents within a brief period of time, including those documents which might clearly address matters which Greyhound knew or should have known would be implicated in the instant case, the Court is granting the motion to compel compliance with this request, and is ordering Greyhound to incur all costs associated with obtaining the emails as set forth in the Declaration of IT expert Sherman Hand.

(6)
Wanding Reports

: Granted.

Greyhound’s further response was not verified. If no actual wanding reports exist beyond what was previously produced, Plaintiff is entitled to a verified further response, in compliance with CCP 2031.230.

The incident occurred January 30, 2011. Complaint was filed on August 11, 2011 and the Answer was filed September 15. 2011. Plaintiff is entitled to know if such reports existed and, if so, if and when they were destroyed.

Defendant is ordered to serve a verified response pursuant to each of the categories in dispute on or before January 31, 2014.

Defendant is ordered to produced the responsive emails on or before February 21, 2014.

Sanctions are ordered to be paid by Greyhound to plaintiff in the reasonable amount of $2,100 (six hours) plus $60 filing fee, for a total of $2,160, pursuant to CCP 2031.320
(c).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.