On April 5, 2012, plaintiff Johanna Magana, 33, a teacher’s aide, was shopping at DD’s Discounts, a retail store owned by Ross Stores Inc., in Fresno. At approximately 3:10 p.m., Magana was with her 7-year-old daughter, facing south, when an employee of DD’s Discounts was heading west with a merchandising cart and struck the outside of Magana’s left foot. Magana sued Ross Stores Inc., the owner and operator of DD’s Discounts. Magana alleged that Ross Stores was liable of its employee’s negligent operation of the merchandising cart. She also alleged that Ross Stores was negligent in operation of the store premises. Immediately after the accident, Magana approached the assistant store manager and specifically reported that the employee struck her with a cart. She then returned to the store the next day, on April 6, 2012, and requested a copy of the incident report. However, Magana claimed the front end supervisor refused to provide her a copy of the report, but observed her walking with a minor limp. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the store had numerous video surveillance cameras that record the store premises from various angles, but that in response to a request for production of documents, the store denied it was in possession of any videotape from April 5, 2012. As a consequence, plaintiff’s counsel deposed several managerial employees, including the assistant store manager, an on-site loss prevention employee, and a corporate loss prevention supervisor, regarding the existence and whereabouts of the videotape. Counsel contended that it was through this testimony it was learned that the assistant store manager, at the request of the defense’s claims examiner, preserved videotape of April 5, 2012, for a period of time beginning one hour before the incident and ending one hour after the incident from all store camera angles. The assistant store manager claimed that he delegated this task to his on-site loss prevention employee, who, by all accounts, followed proper protocol in operating the computer software and successfully copied it to a DVD. According to the corporate loss prevention employee, all store cameras were activated and functioning properly at the time of the incident. The assistant store manager testified that the videotape was then forwarded to their third-party administrator, Sedgewick Claims Management, and the claims examiner for safekeeping and preservation. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that, in direct contradiction to the manager’s testimony, the claims examiner testified at deposition that he never received a videotape from April 5, 2012. Thus, counsel contended that, in essence, the videotape of April 5, 2012 was “alive and well” at the store level, but mysteriously disappeared at the claims and attorney level. Furthermore, the assistant store manager testified at deposition that he reviewed the actual videotape from April 6, 2012, and confirmed that it depicted Magana walking with a slight limp. The manager further testified that, as with the April 5, 2012 videotape, the videotape of Magana the next day was burned to a DVD and sent to Sedgewick Claims Management and the claims examiner for preservation and safekeeping. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that in response to form interrogatories and request for production of documents, the store verified that it was in possession of the videotape from April 6, 2012, and produced a videotape to plaintiff’s counsel purporting to be the same. However, counsel contended that the videotape was date-stamped “4/30/2012” and contained neither the footage of Magana nor of April 6, 2012. In addition, the claims examiner testified at deposition that he received videotape from April 6, 2012, and sent it to defense counsel, but that he was unsure as to its current whereabouts., As a result of the accident, Magana claimed she developed pain to her left, lower extremity. She alleged that, in an attempt to gain her composure, she went to the fitting rooms, where she remained for a brief couple of minutes before then paying for her merchandise and leaving the store. Magana claimed she developed complex regional pain syndrome, also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy or causalgia, a chronic pain condition. She subsequently underwent physical and aqua therapy, a sympathetic nerve block injection, and two separate surgeries to her spinal cord for implantation of a neurostimulator to treat her pain. However, Magana claimed that her condition resulted in a permanent, total disability, for which she took, and continues to take, prescription medication. The plaintiff’s treating physicians, including experts in pain management, neurology, neurosurgery, general medicine, and physical rehabilitation medicine, submitted reports in which they opined that Magana is suffering from CRPS. Magana has not worked since the date of the incident on April 5, 2012, and, according to her physicians, will never return to work again. The plaintiff’s life care planning expert also submitted a report in which she estimated Magana’s future economic loss at approximately $2.4 million. The expert further estimated that, combined with past and future lost wages, Magana’s economic loss was approximately $3 million. Defense counsel denied medical causation, asserting that Magana’s disability was entirely attributable to her pre-existing Type 1 diabetes, which was poorly controlled and resulted in multiple hospitalizations several years prior to the incident.