Hernandez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Pauline Hernandez filed a slip-and-fall case alleging that she slipped on grapes while at Costco in Santa Rosa in September 2019. She alleged resulting mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. Her causes of action were negligence and premises liability.

Costco moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide whether the available evidence leaves any genuine dispute over a fact important to the case. Costco argued that its employees inspected the store floors hourly, that an employee had inspected the area within 30 minutes before Hernandez fell without seeing grapes, and that Costco therefore lacked actual or constructive notice. Costco also argued that the grapes were an open and obvious condition.

Rule 56(d) Request

Hernandez opposed the motion by stating that she had not yet had enough discovery to respond fully. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(1), when a nonmoving party shows by declaration that it cannot yet present facts needed to oppose summary judgment, the court may defer consideration or deny the motion. The court explained that the party must identify the specific facts it hopes to obtain, show that those facts exist, and show that they are essential to opposing the motion. The party must also have pursued the discovery diligently.

The court found that Hernandez met these requirements. She had not yet deposed Costco’s witnesses, and those depositions were scheduled before the close of fact discovery. The witnesses included Chris Jarzombek, who described the store’s floor-walk policies and practices; Eric Gonsalves, who investigated Hernandez’s fall; and Morgan Cambron, who conducted the last floor walk before the fall. The court found their testimony relevant to whether Costco had actual or constructive notice of the grapes.

The court also found no basis to conclude that Hernandez had failed to pursue discovery diligently. The parties had requested a case schedule under which the deadline for hearing dispositive motions came before the close of discovery. Hernandez had conducted a site inspection, served written discovery, and noticed the employee depositions. Costco served its written-discovery responses only after filing the summary-judgment motion, and the court found it reasonable for Hernandez to review those responses before taking the depositions.

Disposition

The court DENIED Costco’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice under Rule 56(d)(1), so Costco could renew the motion after discovery was complete. The court criticized filing the motion before the close of fact discovery but stated that the existing case schedule remained in effect and that it was not inclined to continue the pretrial or trial dates to accommodate a second summary-judgment motion. The court did not decide the ultimate negligence or premises-liability issues in this order.