ROBERTS vs ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY, LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV083946: ROBERTS vs ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY, LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Inspection of Premises; filed by Naomi Roberts (Plaintiff) CRS# 977315576705 in Department 518 Tentative Ruling - 06/02/2026 Mark Fickes This case arises out of a slip and fall at Safeway grocery store on 20629 Redwood Road, Castro Valley, CA, on November 25, 2023. (Complaint, dated July 18, 2024.)

On February 6, 2026, Plaintiff Naomi Roberts demanded the inspection of the premises of Defendant Safeway, Inc. (erroneously sued as Albertsons Safeway, LLC) including “to enter and inspect, measure, and photograph the premises where the subject incident occurred (including the security camera office and equipment), located at or near 20629 Redwood Road, Castro Valley, CA 94546.” (Bremont Decl. ex. 1.) On February 17, 2026, Defendant formally objected. (Bremont Decl. ex. 2.) On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended demand regarding the inspection of the premises. (Bremont Decl., ex. 1.)

On March 20, 2026, Defendant formally objected, again. (Bremont Decl. ex. 2.) Specifically objecting that the demand “is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information not relevant to this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is not limited in its scope, not described with sufficient particularity for Defendant to determine the extent of the inspection, and is harassing” and that the request “is overbroad, burdensome, seeks information not relevant to this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is not limited in its scope, is harassing, seeks privileged information and/or trade secrets, and seeks information affecting Safeway security policies, practices, and operations.

Defense counsel has already attempted to meet and confer with plaintiff regarding the scope of the inspection and has already provided reasoning why no inspection of the video surveillance systems will be allowed.” (Id. at p. 2) On April 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed the motion to compel inspection of the premises and requested sanctions. The parties have met and conferred via email only on a few occasions. (Bremont Decl. ex. 6.) A party may obtain discovery through site inspection. (CCP § 2031.010, subd. (a).)

Under section 2031.310, a party may move for an order a compelling further response to an inspection demand if the demanding party deems that an objection in the response lacks merit or too general. The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. The scope of discovery is broad. (See CCP § 2017.010.) Plaintiff seeks to inspect camera angles

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV083946: ROBERTS vs ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY, LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Inspection of Premises; filed by Naomi Roberts (Plaintiff) CRS# 977315576705 in Department 518 and ability to record the aisle where the trip and fall accident occurred which is relevant to many issues including damages, causation, and the nature and extent of the damages. On April 30, 2026, Defendant emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to advise that Defendant would be admitting liability. (Zeyrek Decl. ¶ 2.)

In its opposition, Defendant asserts that the motion is moot as it has admitted liability and Defendant requests sanctions; however, Defendant continues to assert that “no video footage of plaintiff at the subject store either before, during, or after the alleged incident” exists. (Opp. p. 2 - 3.) It is not clear that the inspection is rendered moot if Defendant intends to assert that no footage exists since the existence of the security footage is relevant to remaining contested issues. However, Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer before filing this motion.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts deficient. (Townsend v. Super. Ct. (EMC Mort. Co.) (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1439 (“A reasonable and good-faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with deponent’s counsel at a deposition. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.”); see also Obregon v. Super. Ct. (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 424, 430–35 (detailing factors for courts to consider in determining adequacy of meet and confer efforts); Loc.

R. 3.31 (requiring that parties meet and confer either in-person, or by telephone or video conference).)

The Court is not inclined to grant either party’s request for sanctions. The parties are urged to limit the scope of the inspection as necessary to allow a reasonable inspection to occur. Trial is currently scheduled for July 27, 2026, and the Court does not intend to continue the trial date. Orders The Court continues the hearing to June 23, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. and ORDERS the parties to further meet and confer regarding the scope of the site inspection and file a joint status update. The parties must meet and confer either in person or by telephone or video conference (in order of preference)—on more than one occasion if necessary—to discuss Plaintiff’s demand for inspection.

Further, the Court ORDERS the parties to audio record, video, or transcribe the meet and confer meeting and be prepared to present it to the court at the next hearing date if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV083946: ROBERTS vs ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY, LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Inspection of Premises; filed by Naomi Roberts (Plaintiff) CRS# 977315576705 in Department 518 If the parties resolve their discovery dispute regarding the premises inspection, Plaintiff must promptly notify the Court no later than June 16, 2026.

If the parties are unable to resolve their discovery dispute, the parties must file a joint separate statement no later than June 16, 2026, briefly describing the parties’ further meet and confer efforts and any outstanding issues. The joint separate statement must not exceed 15 pages, excluding the caption page. Further, the parties are required to appear in person at this continued hearing and be prepared to present to the court the transcription of the meet and confer efforts. --- The Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Inspection of Premises; filed by Naomi Roberts (Plaintiff) CRS# 977315576705 scheduled for 06/04/2026 is continued to 06/23/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 518 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing. To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following: First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party’s name and a brief statement of the party’s reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed." Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518’s Personal Meeting Room

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV083946: ROBERTS vs ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY, LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Inspection of Premises; filed by Naomi Roberts (Plaintiff) CRS# 977315576705 in Department 518 Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)