Plaintiffs have filed a first amended motion to compel (docket no. 24), to which motion defendant has responded. (Docket no. 27). Plaintiffs allege various deficiencies in defendant's responses to their interrogatories and requests for production. In a Joint Advisory, the parties informed the Court they have entered into a Rule 29 Agreement concerning defendant's written discovery responses referenced in plaintiffs' amended motion to compel discovery with the exception of Requests for Production Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 12. The amended motion to compel shall be GRANTED.

Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, as amended, governs the scope of permissible discovery, providing that:

FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1). A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling production against a party that has failed to answer an interrogatory or to produce documents requested pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34. See FED.R.CIV.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” FED.R.CIV.P. 37(a)(4).

To prevail on a motion to compel or resist a motion for protective order, the party seeking discovery may well need to make its own showing of many or all of the proportionality factors set out in Rule 26(b)(1); however, a party resisting discovery still bears the burden of making a specific objection and showing that the discovery fails the proportionality calculation mandated by Rule 26(b) by coming forward with specific information to address--insofar as that information is available to it--the factors enumerated in Rule 26(b)(1). Areizaga v. ADW Corp., 314 F.R.D. 428, 435 (N.D. Tex. 2016)(citing FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1) ). A party resisting discovery must show how the requested discovery is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden. Samsung Electronics America Inc. v. Yang Kun “Michael” Chung, ––– F.R.D. ––––, 2017 WL 896897 at *9 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 07, 2017). General or boilerplate objections are invalid, and “[o]bjections to discovery must be made with specificity, and the responding party has the obligation to explain and support its objections.” Id. (quoting OrchestrateHR, Inc. v. Trombetta, 178 F.Supp.3d 476, 507 (N.D. Tex. 2016) ).

Analysis

*2 The requests for production at issue and defendant's responses are as follows:

* * *

In its first amended motion to compel, plaintiffs assert that defendant produced four items in discovery: (1) a guest incident report, (2) a transcription of an audio recording of an interview of plaintiff Tammy Hitchcock, (3) three videos showing surveillance video of the interior of the store in the moments leading up to plaintiff's fall, the fall, and the moments after the fall, and (4) a copy of an applicable insurance policy. Plaintiffs argue that defendant surely has and must produce employee statements (written or audio), clock-in and/or duty sheets, personnel files, employee training materials, handbooks, rulebooks, documents related to prior accidents on the premises, or inspection reports. They also state that the transcription should be accompanied by the original audio recording and the videos should cover, at a minimum, all footage of the premises from the day of the incident from the time employees first arrived to store closing. Plaintiffs further object to defendant's failure to produce a privilege log.

In its response, as to request nos. 2, 5, and 6, defendant objects to providing footage of the premises from the day of incident from the time defendant's first arrived to the defendant's premises to closing. Defendant stands by its objections. Alternatively, if the Court overrules defendant's objections, defendant requests that it issue an Order that defendant produce store video footage depicting only the plaintiffs upon defendant's premises from the time plaintiffs entered its premises and up to the time of plaintiff Tammy Hitchcock's incident made the basis of this suit.

Initially, the Court notes that defendant's objections to plaintiffs' requests for productions are impermissibly general and conclusorily. They provide responses “[s]ubject to and without waiving the foregoing objections ...” Responding to interrogatories and document requests “subject to” and/or “without waiving” objections is manifestly confusing (at best) and misleading (at worse), and has no basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Samsung Electronics America Inc., ––– F.R.D. ––––, 2017 WL 896897 at *9. Defendant made no effort to carry its burden of making a specific objection and showing that the discovery fails the proportionality calculation mandated by Rule 26(b) by coming forward with specific information to address--insofar as that information is available to it--the factors enumerated in Rule 26(b)(1). Areizaga, 314 F.R.D. at 435.

*5 To recover in a slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on the premises such as a slippery substance on the floor, Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. 1992), which may be accomplished with a showing that “(1) the defendant placed the substance on the floor, (2) the defendant actually knew that the substance was on the floor, or (3) it is more likely than not that the condition existed long enough to give the premises owner a reasonable opportunity to discover it.” Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9, 15-16 (Tex. 2014)(quoting Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812, 814 (Tex. 2002) ). Footage of the premises from the day of incident from the time defendant's employees first arrived at the defendant's premises to closing is highly relevant to this issue. Defendant's objections to requests for production nos. 2, 5 and 6 are OVERRULED.

Request no. 4 seeks personnel files of employees who submitted/received incident reports or were involved in the incident complained of in plaintiff's petition, including but not limited to personnel files for employees who witnessed this incident, rendered assistance to, came in contact with, or engaged in conversation with plaintiff. In its response, defendant stands by its objections to the production of the personnel files as requested, arguing that the personnel files have no bearing on the allegations contained in plaintiffs' petition. Alternatively, if the Court overrules defendant's objections, defendant requests that it issue an Order that defendant produce personnel files for defendant's store employees that submitted/received incident reports or were involved in the incident complained of in plaintiffs' petition, including but not limited to personnel files for store employees who witnessed this incident, rendered assistance to, came in contact with, or engaged in conversation with plaintiff Tammy Hitchcock from each employee's date of hire to August 21, 2015 with appropriate redactions associated with HIPAA and/or personal privacy rights.

As before, defendant's objections to plaintiffs' requests for productions, for the most part, are impermissibly general and conclusorily. Defendant again makes no effort to carry its burden of making a specific objection and showing that the discovery fails the proportionality calculation mandated by Rule 26(b) by coming forward with specific information to address--insofar as that information is available to it--the factors enumerated in Rule 26(b)(1). Areizaga, 314 F.R.D. at 435. The Court agrees that appropriate redactions associated with HIPAA and/or personal privacy rights should be made. Defendant's objections to request for production no. 4 are OVERRULED. However, defendant shall redact from the produced personnel files irrelevant personal information including, social security numbers; statements of earnings, wages, and withholdings; benefits statements; and medical history. See Contino v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 2015 WL 2226229, at *3 (S.D. Ga. 2015).

Request for production no. 10 seeks documents reflecting the name of the employee(s) responsible for maintenance of the front entrance of the premises on the date of the incident made the basis of this suit. In its response, defendant stands by its objections to the production of documents for employees responsible for the maintenance of defendant's premises' front entrance due to the fact that the incident made the basis of plaintiffs' suit occurred inside Defendant's premises, not its front entrance. Once again, defendant's objections to plaintiffs' request for productions are impermissibly general and conclusorily. Defendant again makes no effort to carry its burden of making a specific objection and showing that the discovery fails the proportionality calculation mandated by Rule 26(b) by coming forward with specific information to address--insofar as that information is available to it--the factors enumerated in Rule 26(b)(1). Areizaga, 314 F.R.D. at 435. Defendant's objections to request for production no. 10 are OVERRULED.

*6 Request for production no. 12 seeks documents that show the organizational structure and responsibilities of employees within defendant's organization. In its response, defendant stands by its objections. Alternatively, if the Court overrules defendant's objections, defendant requests that it issue an Order that defendant produce a store organizational chart that was in effect on the date of plaintiff Tammy Hitchcock's incident and documents that show job duties/responsibilities for defendant's store employees who submitted/received incident reports, were involved in the incident complained of in plaintiffs' petition, who witnessed the incident, rendered assistance to, came in contact with, or engaged in conversation with plaintiff Tammy Hitchcock.

As before, defendant's objections to plaintiffs' request for productions are impermissibly general and conclusorily. Defendant again makes no effort to carry its burden of making a specific objection and showing that the discovery fails the proportionality calculation mandated by Rule 26(b) by coming forward with specific information to address--insofar as that information is available to it--the factors enumerated in Rule 26(b)(1). Areizaga, 314 F.R.D. at 435. Defendant's objections to request for production no. 12 are OVERRULED.

It is so ORDERED.