2012-00129104-CU-PO

Maria Guzman vs. The Home Depot U.S.A.., Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents

Filed By: Tiemann, Peter B.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set 3,
Nos. 42 and 43, is granted.

Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she slipped and fell in water that was
present in the outside garden area next to the Home Depot garden department.
Plaintiff contends that Home Depot’s normal procedure is to put out orange cones to
notify customers of the wet pavement but that a representative stated that he was not
sure whether the cones were present at the time plaintiff fell.

Plaintiff seeks unredacted claims forms for all slip and falls as a result of water in the
outside garden area of the Home Depot located at 2000 Howe Avenue for two years
prior to the accident (No.42) and unredacted copies of claims forms for all slip and falls
as a result of liquid in the outside garden area of The Home Depot. (No. 43)

The court previously denied an over-broad request that sought all claims of this type
from all California Home Depots. The court indicated that a more narrowly drawn
request might be acceptable.

Defendant contends that defendant’s knowledge of prior incidents of water on the floor
is irrelevant to plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff contends that the presence or absence of the
safety cones during the prior incidents could lead to admissible evidence on the issue
of whether defendant followed its usual procedure regarding the safety cones when
plaintiff fell.

Defendant also contends that the identities of the persons who filed claims are
protected by the right of privacy and therefore they produced redacted copies to
plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that these persons are potential witnesses to the same type
of conditions that caused her fall at the same store, and that the identity of witnesses is
not protected by the right of privacy. Names of witnesses are not generally protected
under the guise of privacy.

To the extent the names and contact information of the two persons who filed claims
are subject to the right of privacy, the Court has balanced the plaintiff’s need for the
information with the third parties right of privacy and finds that the plaintiff’s interest in
the identity and contact information for those persons outweighs any potential privacy
interest they may have in their identity.

Defendants shall serve further responses and produce the unredacted claim form on
or before October 11, 2013.

Sanctions are denied on the ground that defendant acted reasonably in opposing the
motion on the ground of third parties’ privacy rights.

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