Vega v. Ross Stores Inc.
4:24-cv-00733
E.D. Tex.May 9, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Vicenta Vega sued Ross Stores, Inc. and its manager after a slip-and-fall incident at a Ross store in Texas.
- During discovery, Ross Stores sought a protective order to limit disclosure of its confidential business documents, particularly its contracts and internal policies.
- Vega countered with a motion to compel production of these and other relevant documents, arguing they were key to her case and to those of other potential plaintiffs.
- The court previously directed Ross Stores to supplement its motion for a protective order with specific evidence to demonstrate good cause, which Ross Stores failed to provide.
- Both parties' motions addressed the scope and relevance of discovery requests, claims of confidentiality, and work-product privilege.
- The decision addresses both motions, granting and denying each in part, and sets forth detailed guidance on what Ross must produce.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protective Order on confidential info | Discovery should be shareable; no blanket protection justified | Disclosure could harm business/subject to contractual confidentiality | Only limited redactions permitted; no blanket protective order for most docs |
| Relevance & scope of discovery | All requested documents are relevant to incident and potential liability | Much sought is irrelevant, particularly leak-related docs, post-deposition | Requests are relevant; objections mostly boilerplate and overruled |
| Work-product and privilege claims | No proper privilege log; protection claims waived | Some materials are work product after litigation anticipated | No privilege claim upheld absent privilege log; must produce relevant documents |
| Scope of storewide incident/falls docs | Docs from all Ross stores relevant to pattern/practices | All-store request overly broad, burdensome | Overbroad for all stores; narrowed production to documents from subject location |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Amoco Prod. Co., 768 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1985) (presumption that party may use discovery material freely unless good cause shown for limitation)
- In re Terra Int’l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 1998) (party seeking a protective order must show good cause with specific facts, not conclusory assertions)
- Cazorla v. Koch Foods of Miss., L.L.C., 838 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2016) (court must balance hardship of discovery against its probative value)
- McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482 (5th Cir. 1990) (party resisting discovery must specifically justify objections)
- Crosby v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2011) (discovery requests are relevant if reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence)