2011-00109003-CU-PO

Debora Preston vs. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Written Discovery

Filed By: Villeggiante, Michael J.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to written discovery requests
propounded on defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Ronald Egenhoff was continued
to this date to allow additional meet and confer efforts.

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.

The parties have engaged in further meet and confer efforts and have narrowed the
discovery dispute. The Court greatly appreciates the time and effort that the parties
have contributed to resolving the issues in dispute. The six items set forth in the joint
statement, some of which have been resolved, are as follows:

(1) Documents regarding Greyhound’s screening decision at Reno:

On October 30, 2013, Greyhound produced a spreadsheet relating to Greyhound’s use
of the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) funds received from the TSA to assist
with security measures in locations identified by the Department of Homeland Security.
Plaintiff contends that a further response is required, stating whether there are any
other responsive documents relating to decisions to screen or not to screen in Reno.
The Court agrees that a further response is required, since Greyhound states that it
may continue to screen at a location even after it is no longer on the Department of
Homeland Security List. Since there appear to be factors considered other than
whether the Department of Homeland Security has determined that a location is a high
-threat/high density location, the Court is granting the motion to compel a further
response and production.

(2) Risk Management Database Cause Codes: This issue has been resolved.
Greyhound has agreed to produce the list of all codes that could be used to query the
risk management database. The Court assumes that Greyhound has agreed to
conduct a further query of the database on the basis of codes that plaintiff identities,
and the court so orders.

(3) Security Contract and Post Orders for the Reno Location: This issue has been
resolved. Greyhound as agreed to produce the contract with the security company,
and it has been determined that the bid process documents are no longer available
due to the passage of time.

(4) Greyhound’s Risk Management Database: Granted only to the extent that
Greyhound shall, as it has agreed, produce the entire list of available codes.
Greyhound shall conduct a further query of the database on the basis of codes that
plaintiff identities. The court will not order production of the entire database as it is
clearly overbroad. The database include incidents not related to violence between
passengers, or between a passenger and driver, and even includes such as incidents
of damage from gravel, and animal strikes.

(5) Electronically Stored Information – Email : The Court finds that plaintiff’s
proposed scope of email information is unreasonable. As stated in the earlier tentative
ruling, the scope of email information should be limited to the incident and to the
employees with knowledge of the incident. The defendant has agreed to provide the
emails of Al Smith, Roger Muckle, and Chris Brooks concerning the incident. The
emails may be searched by using terms related to the incident, as set forth in the
“Defendant’s position” at page 7 of the Joint Statement.

(6) Wanding Reports: Granted to the extent that wanding reports from San
Fransisco, Oakland and Sacramento shall be provided. Plaintiff has agreed to limit the
request to these three cities. Defendant contends that the wanding reports are not
relevant. However, to the extent that Greyhound provides service from these other
cities to Reno, the information may lead to admissible evidence. Greyhound has not
argued that the request is oppressive or burdensome.

Where granted, defendant is required to produce additional documents on or before
November 29, 2013.

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