Charles v. Target Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-07854
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Charles v. Target Corporation, Judge Corley granted in part Charles’s motion to compel aisle testing but did not order inspection of Target’s video system.
Cheryl Charles may inspect and test Aisle A21 at Target Corporation’s premises, and Target Corporation must allow that inspection before the store opens, subject to restoring the floor to its prior condition.
What happened
In Charles v. Target Corporation, Cheryl Charles asked to inspect and test the store aisle where she allegedly slipped and fell.
Target argued that Charles had to show the proposed testing would closely match the accident conditions and first provide a detailed testing plan. The court rejected those arguments as premature for discovery.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part Charles’s motion to compel, ordering Target to allow inspection and testing of Aisle A21 before the store opened. The court did not order inspection of the video system because Charles had not shown good cause.
The detailed version
- Charles v. Target Corporation · No. 4:20-cv-07854
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 23, 2021
Background
Cheryl Charles asked to inspect and test Aisle A21, the aisle where she allegedly slipped and fell. The request was presented as a discovery dispute, meaning a disagreement about obtaining information or access needed for the case.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(2) allows a party to request entry onto property controlled by another party to inspect, measure, photograph, test, or sample the property. The court concluded that Charles’s request complied with that rule.
Target argued that Charles first had to show substantial similarity between the proposed test and the conditions of the alleged accident. The court rejected that argument because the authority Target cited concerned whether test results could later be admitted as evidence, not whether Charles could conduct the test during discovery.
Target also demanded a detailed testing protocol identifying the equipment and how it would be used. The court found that demand premature. If Charles’s expert relied on the testing, the process and results would have to be disclosed in the expert report, giving Target an opportunity to challenge them. Charles had to leave the floor in the same condition as before the inspection and testing.
The court also stated that Charles had not shown good cause to inspect the video system.
Ruling
The court granted in part Charles’s motion to compel. Target was ordered to allow Charles to inspect Aisle A21 beginning at 7:00 a.m., before the store opened. The parties were ordered to agree on an inspection date by June 25, 2021. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 23 and 28.
The opinion is signed by Jacqueline Scott Corley, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.