Opinion
No. 3:19-CV-419-J-34PDB
07-18-2019
BARBARA FELDMAN AND EDWARD FELDMAN, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant.
Order
Barbara Feldman alleges she tripped on a protruding end cap of an aisle in a Target store and injured herself. Doc. 3 ¶ 9. She and her husband claim Target was negligent. Doc. 3 ¶¶ 10-18. Pending is their motion to compel Target to produce a surveillance video before her deposition, Docs. 7, 24, and Target's response in opposition, Doc. 28.
A court has broad discretion to decide the sequence of discovery. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 595 n.13 (2007). In the exercise of that discretion, courts vary in their answer to the question presented by the Feldmans' motion: video first, or deposition first? Compare, e.g., Muzaffarr v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1375 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (video first), with Parks v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 285 F.R.D. 674, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (deposition first).
For the persuasive reasons in Parks, 285 F.R.D. at 675, adopted by this Court in a slip-and-fall case against Target, see Autumn Strand v. Target Corp., 3:15-cv- 1453-J-39JBT, Doc. 13 at 2-3 (M.D. Fla. June 1, 2016) (unpublished), the Court denies the motion, Doc. 7. Target may wait until after Mrs. Feldman's deposition to produce the video.
Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on July 18, 2019.
/s/_________
PATRICIA D. BARKSDALE
United States Magistrate Judge c: Counsel of record