Charles v. Target Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-07854
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Charles v. Target Corporation, Judge Gilliam denied sanctions and partly granted, partly denied Target’s motion to seal documents.
Cheryl Charles and Target Corporation; the ruling denied Charles’s requested sanctions and required Target to publicly file documents for which sealing was denied, while allowing one internal document to remain sealed.
What happened
Charles v. Target Corporation concerns Cheryl Charles’s request for sanctions after she allegedly slipped on spilled baby powder in a Target store. She argued that Target should have preserved more surveillance video.
Target had preserved about an hour of footage—30 minutes before and 30 minutes after the fall—under its written policy. Charles sought sanctions that would establish negligence and prevent Target from presenting certain defenses and evidence.
The court denied the sanctions motion. Judge Gilliam granted in part and denied in part Target’s motion to seal: some deposition excerpts and the surveillance video must be made public, while an internal document about Target’s incident policies and procedures may remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Charles v. Target Corporation · No. 4:20-cv-07854
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 6, 2022
Background
Cheryl Charles alleged that she was injured after slipping and falling in a Target store in Colma on February 2, 2018. She contended that she slipped on baby powder spilled in an aisle. Charles argued that Target failed to preserve enough footage from its in-store surveillance system to show what substance had spilled and whether Target knew, or should have known, about the condition.
Target preserved approximately one hour of footage, including 30 minutes before and 30 minutes after the fall. The court noted that this was consistent with Target’s written retention policy and that the footage was saved before the lawsuit was filed and before counsel sent a demand or preservation letter. Charles did not provide evidence showing when any additional footage was destroyed or that Target destroyed it after receiving notice that litigation was being pursued.
Motion for Sanctions
Charles sought issue sanctions—a ruling that Target had been negligent and was liable for her injuries—and evidentiary sanctions that would bar Target from presenting evidence about its lack of notice, floor inspections, or inspection policies. The court explained that the party seeking sanctions for destruction of relevant evidence must show that sanctions are warranted.
The court found that Charles had not met that burden. It emphasized that Target had preserved about an hour of surveillance footage weeks before receiving a preservation letter and years before the lawsuit was filed. The court also noted that Charles had not cited authority showing that sanctions were appropriate in these circumstances. The court therefore denied the motion for sanctions.
Motion to Seal
Target sought to seal deposition excerpts from its designated corporate witness, the surveillance video, and an internal document concerning its policies and procedures for guest incidents in its stores. Because the materials were more than only indirectly related to the underlying claims, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard, which requires a specific justification strong enough to overcome the public’s general right to inspect court records.
The court denied the sealing request for the deposition excerpts and surveillance video. It found that some deposition excerpts were already publicly available, that the remaining excerpts did not reveal specific internal policies or practices, and that Target had not explained how the materials would cause competitive harm or reveal confidential information.
The court granted the motion to seal as to the internal document. It found that the document disclosed confidential business information and was not needed for the public to understand the court’s decision. The court directed Target to file public versions of documents for which sealing was denied within seven days. Documents for which sealing was granted would remain under seal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.