Judge John J. Kralik, Case Number: 23BBCV01804, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Ramon Enriquez Marquez Mendez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on February 2, 2022, Plaintiff was shopping inside Defendants Walgreen Co., Walgreen National Corporation, Walgreen Boot Alliance, Inc., and Walgreens Store #9491’s business at a Walgreens store in North Hollywood. He alleges that there were multiple stacked plastic crates filled with merchandise that fell and struck Plaintiff, injuring his eye and causing orthopedic injuries. Plaintiff alleges that the Walgreens store’s premises was managed by Defendant Stephanie Martinez.

The complaint, filed August 7, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) general negligence; and (2) premises liability.

On August 30, 2023, the dismissal without prejudice of the complaint filed against Defendants Walgreen National Corporation and Walgreen Boot Alliance Inc., only was entered.

On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of the person most qualified (“PMQ”) for Walgreen Co. Plaintiff requests $8,385 in sanctions.

On March 4, 2024, Defendants Walgreen Co. and Stephanie Martinez filed an opposition brief.

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Walgreen Co.’s PMQ regarding corporate policies and procedures pursuant to the notice served on November 13, 2023, and as amended on December 22, 2023. (Mot. at Exs. 1 and 8; Opp., Ex. D [Deposition Notice of Def.’s PMQ].) Plaintiff states that the latter deposition notice was intended to separate out issues, matters, and policies and procedures into 2 separate PMQ deposition notices: one related specifically to Store #9491 (which Defendant designated manager Stephanie Martinez to testify on behalf of the store) and the other on corporate policies and procedures in relation to Store #9491. Plaintiff argues that Defendant produced Martinez as the PMQ regarding Store #9491, but did not designate a corporate PMQ. At Martinez’s deposition, Plaintiff argues that Martinez was unable to testify about many topics as she was not qualified to do so. (Mot. at p.5; Mot., Ex. 9.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that it produced Martinez as its PMQ and also produced for depositions a Shift Lead, Angel Espinoza, who assisted Plaintiff after the incident and employee Kelly Ramirez who spoke with the police after the incident. Defendant argues that Martinez was deposed on January 9, 2024, in her individual capacity, as well as in her capacity as the PMQ. It argues that Martinez is the proper PMQ about Store #9491 and that a corporate witness to discuss policies and procedures about all stores in the country is not relevant to this action.[1] Defendant argues that Martinez was able to testify about 21 different categories of deposition topics, though Defendant acknowledges that her testimony about the purchase and installation of the store security cameras was not complete. (Opp. at pp.8-9.)

The deposition notice includes 16 categorical topics regarding which Plaintiff intended to depose the PMQ. The separate statement addresses the deposition categories and the requests for production of documents (“RPD”), but does not include a request to seek a further response from Martinez regarding her specific deposition answers. At her deposition, Martinez was able to testify about how to look for updates of Defendant’s policies and procedures in her geographical region, how to use Defendant’s StoreNet/Compass programs, general policies and procedures about the specific store at issue, etc. However, to the extent that she was unable to answer deposition questions or defense counsel objected, Plaintiff has not sought further responses to these deposition questions. (Plaintiff highlighted certain questions, objections, and responses in the deposition transcript, but they were not raised in the separate statement. [See Mot., Ex. 8.] It does not appear that Plaintiff is seeking to compel the continued deposition of Martinez by way of this motion.) As such, the Court will only focus on the categories and RPDs as listed in the separate statement.

The Court has reviewed the categories at issue. For example, Category #1 asks about all of Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding the use of security video surveillance cameras and monitors. Category #2 asks about all policies and procedures related to training Defendant’s employees. Category #3 asks about all policies and procedures regarding the hiring, training, supervision, and staffing of managers and/or persons in a supervisory capacity at Defendant’s stores. Category #4-#10 similarly seek to depose a PMQ regarding Defendant’s policies and procedures generally and not limited to the specific store at issue (as they refer to Defendant’s “stores”). Category #11-16 are specifically regarding Store #9491, the subject incident, and Martinez. Defendant objected that the deposition categories were not described with reasonable particularity and were vague and overly broad.

Based on the Court’s review, the deposition topics are overbroad in scope. Category #1-#10 are not limited to the store where Plaintiff’s alleged injury occurred or even to the State of California. The categories refer to Defendant’s “stores” without specification or geographical limitation. While the proposed deposition categories are generally and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, they should be more narrowly tailored to information regarding the geographical region where the injury occurred. The Court will designate this geographical area as Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. This will aid Defendant’s PMQ in preparation so that he, she, or they can focus on the topics and specific policies and procedures based on the proper geographical location (as laws may and do differ across different states), etc. While it may be that Martinez is the only PMQ that Defendant has and that it can and will designate to testify regarding the subject store, it is evident that a corporate level witness is necessary to discuss policies more broadly. Based on the categories as written as to Category #1-10, the motion to compel the PMQ deposition is granted, though the scope of knowledge of those PMQ’s is narrowed to policies in effect in Los Angeles and Ventura County. The Court denies the motion as to Category #11-#16 as Martinez was already produced to speak about topics specific to the store and incident.

With respect to the RPDs, the motion is granted, though the topics will be narrowed to correspond to the geographical limitation above. Defendant must provide a written response in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure and must provide a privilege log if any documents are withheld on the basis of privilege. The parties should meet and confer and cooperate in producing documents to allow for production prior to the continued deposition. Plaintiff argues that Defendant only produced 5 pages of documents total, bringing the full count of documents produced by Defendant to 6 pages. (Mot. at p.6.) It is apparent that documents exist based on Martinez’s deposition testimony that Defendant updates its policies and procedures on its internal programs and websites. To the extent that the documents contain proprietary information, Defendant should either produce a privilege log or the parties should enter a protective order to preserve the confidentiality of any proprietary/trade secret information. Moreover, as pointed out above, Defendants must delineate the extent of their compliance with responses that comply with the Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff Ramon Enriquez Marquez Mendez’s motion to compel the deposition of the person most qualified for Defendant Walgreen Co. regarding corporate policies and procedures is granted. Defendant Walgreen Co. must produce a witness with knowledge of the corporate policies and procedures in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties and must provide proper responses to the document demands as limited to those counties, together with a privilege log if documents are withheld on the basis of privilege. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $4,500.

[1] To dispel confusion, there appears to be 2 deposition notices that are relevant.

Plaintiff served an Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendant Walgreen Co.’s PMQ re Walgreens Store #9491 with 21 deposition categories and 21 RPDs. (Opp., Ex. C.)

Plaintiff also served a Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendant Walgreen Co.’s PMQ with 17 deposition categories and 22 RPDs (Nos. 1-14, 25, 26, another 26, and 27-31). (Opp., Ex. D.)

According to the deposition transcript, Martinez testified that she was the PMQ for the Category Nos. 1-21. (See Mot. at Ex. 4 and Opp. at Ex. C [Amended Deposition Notice of Def.’s PMQ re Walgreens Store #9491]; Mot., Ex. 9 [1/9/24 Deposition Transcript].) However, it does not appear that the Amended Deposition Notice regarding Store #9491 is at issue in the motion as the separate statement only includes 16 categories of deposition topics. This motion and the separate statement appear to be directed to the Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendant Walgreen Co.’s PMQ (not specific to Store #9491). (See Mot., Ex. 8; Opp., Ex. D.)

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department B