SMITH, Magistrate Judge
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Doc. 29), filed January 18, 2000. The Court has reviewed the motion, the memoranda and exhibits submitted by the parties, and the relevant authorities. The Court finds that Plaintiffs motion is well-taken, in part, and should be granted, in part, as follows . . .
Plaintiffs Request for Production No. 3 asks Defendant to produce a diagram of the subject stores current lay out. Defendants objected on the basis of relevancy. The scope of discovery is broad under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 26 provides:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(5)(b)(1).
I find that a diagram of the subject stores current lay out is relevant and discoverable under Rule 26. If Defendant has in its possession a diagram of the subject stores current lay out, it must produce it. If Defendant does not have such a diagram, Defendant must allow Plaintiff reasonable access to the store so that she may prepare her own diagram.
In both Request for Production No. 8 and Interrogatory No 21, Plaintiff seeks information about other falls that occurred in the subject store. Defendant objected to this interrogatory on the ground that it was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
While the information sought is relevant within the meaning of Rule 26, the scope of the interrogatory and request should be narrowed. In response to both Request for Production No. 8 and Interrogatory No 21, Defendant must produce incident reports for unclean floor cases for the five years preceding the date of Plaintiffs incident. Defendant may redact information identifying the persons who complained of mishaps due to unclean floors, if it so desires.
Defendant is to maintain a record of the cost of producing these documents, including copying costs. A determination of who must ultimately pay for production of these records is reserved for post-trial motions practice.
Defendant shall produce the documents identified herein within thirty days of the date of entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.