On Feb. 17, 2013, plaintiff Laura Rojas de Escobedo, 50, a part-time maid, slipped and fell on a piece of fruit in Aisle 13 at the Food 4 Less in Escondido. De Escobedo claimed to her neck, back, head, and left knee. De Escobedo sued Food 4 Less of California Inc., Food 4 Less of Southern California Inc., Food 4 Less Holdings Inc., Food 4 Less Merchandising Inc., and Food 4 Less GM Inc. De Escobedo alleged that the defendants were negligent for failing to properly maintain the aisles and timely clean up any spills, creating a dangerous condition. Several of the Food 4 Less entities were dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter continued against Food 4 Less of California Inc. only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the store was negligent in its sweeping of the aisles and that the store intentionally destroyed and/or altered the video surveillance footage, which would have shown the slip and fall. Counsel noted that Food 4 Less of California provided surveillance videos that were modified to cut off right before de Escobedo’s fall. Specifically, two videos were provided, both of which showed the sweeps, but one cut off immediately before the fall and the second cut off 15 minutes before the fall. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the store manager testified that he did not have the capability to view the video in his office, but his co-manager testified that both he and the manager viewed the video in the manager’s office after the fall. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel stressed in closing that Food 4 Less of California intentionally altered the evidence and only provided a video that showed the scene from very far away and that Food 4 Less of California failed to provide any of the other 96 camera angles that would have shown a better view. Defense counsel contended that the sweeps were proper and that two sweeps were completed one hour before the fall. Counsel also denied that any employee deliberately destroyed evidence, and argued that the preserved video captured all of the employees’ and de Escobedo’s activities until seconds before the fall. Defense counsel further argued that the failure to capture the fall on the video was due to either human error or machine malfunction., De Escobedo claimed that she sustained sprains and strains to her neck and back, as well as a tear of the meniscus in her left knee. She was subsequently transported by ambulance to an emergency room. De Escobedo underwent several months of chiropractic and physical therapy. She also underwent injection therapy, including platelet-rich plasma injections, where her own blood, having a platelet concentration above baseline, was injected to promote healing of injured tendons, ligaments, muscles, and joints. She did not begin treatment for the torn meniscus until several weeks after the fall and did not undergo surgery until almost three years later, on Oct. 22, 2015. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that de Escobedo was seen by three separate orthopedic surgeons, all who recommended the arthroscopic knee surgery to repair the meniscal tear. However, counsel contended that de Escobedo will require additional treatment for her . Thus, de Escobedo sought recovery of $69,000 in medical costs and an unspecified amount of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that since de Escobedo did not begin treatment for the torn meniscus until several weeks after the incident, and did not undergo surgery until almost three years after the fall, the knee injury was unrelated to the incident.