Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02234/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02234-53/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHARIDAN STILES, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WALMART, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTER-ACTIONS 

No. 2:14-CV-2234-MCE-DMC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs, who are proceeding with retained counsel, bring this civil action 

alleging intellectual property and antitrust claims. Pending before the court are the following four 

discovery motions: 

 Motions Filed by Plaintiffs 

 ECF No. 324 Motion to compel defendant American International Industries, 

Inc., (AI) to provide further responses to requests for production, 

set two. 

 ECF No. 334 Motion to compel deposition testimony from Walmart’s Rule 

30(b)(6) witness. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

 Motions Filed by Walmart 

 ECF No. 332 Motion to enforce court’s order regarding depositions and for 

a protective order. 

 ECF No. 336 Motion for a protective order regarding Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) 

witness. 

The parties have filed joint statements regarding these discovery disputes. See ECF Nos. 325, 

342, and 352. The parties’ requests to seal documents in connection with these motions and 

responses thereto (ECF Nos. 326, 329, 330, 348, and 353) will be addressed by separate order. 

 Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant AI to provide further discovery responses 

was submitted without oral argument. See ECF No. 331. The parties appeared before the 

undersigned in Redding, California, on February 5, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., on stipulated shortened 

notice for arguments on the remaining motions. Brian Dunne, Esq., and Erick Kuylman, Esq., 

appeared for plaintiffs. Catherine Simonsen, Esq., appeared for Walmart. Also appearing was 

Karen Jacobsen, Esq., for non-parties Jeanne Helfrich and Walgreen Co. Following oral 

argument, the remaining motions were submitted. 

 

I. SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES

 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant AI to Provide Further Responses to 

Requests for Production, Set Two (ECF No. 324) 

 Plaintiffs seek an order compelling defendant AI to provide further responses to 

request for production nos. 63, 65-76, 79-80, 85-86, 91-92, and 97-98. According to plaintiffs, 

the discovery requests at issue “seek information regarding Walmart’s Category Advisor 

Program.” ECF No. 325, pg. 18 (joint statement). In response to each of these requests, 

defendant AI raised a number of objections and stated that, subject to and without waiving its 

objections, it had already produced all responsive non-privileged documents in its possession, 

custody, or control. See e.g. ECF No. 325-2, pg. 9 (AI’s response to request no. 63). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

 Walmart’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order Regarding Depositions and 

for a Protective Order (ECF No. 332) 

 Walmart seeks an order to enforce the court’s January 17, 2020, order permitting 

plaintiffs to take the depositions of up to 18 specified individuals. In particular, Walmart seeks a 

protective order precluding plaintiffs from taking the depositions of Jeanne Helfrich and Robin 

Foshee. See ECF No. 342, pg. 3 (joint statement). 

 The Parties’ Cross-Motions Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition of 

Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) Witness (ECF Nos. 334 and 336) 

 Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Walmart to produce its Rule 30(b)(6) 

witness(es) to testify on five disputed topics. See ECF No. 352, pgs. 8-9 (joint statement). 

Walmart seeks a protective order precluding such deposition testimony. See id. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant AI to Provide Further Responses to 

Requests for Production, Set Two (ECF No. 324) 

As AI notes in the joint statement, plaintiffs’ motion is untimely. On May 20, 

2016, the District Judge issued an initial scheduling order upon commencement of this action. 

See ECF No. 54. In that order, the court addressed discovery as follows: 

 All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be 

completed no later than three hundred sixty-five (365) days from the filing 

of the original complaint in the action. In this context, “completed” 

means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all 

depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery 

shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where 

discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to 

compel discovery must be notice on the magistrate judge’s calendar in 

accordance with the Local Rules. (footnote omitted). 

Id. at 2 (bold added). 

On August 10, 2018, the court issued a stipulated modified discovery and 

scheduling order. See ECF No. 146 (stipulated order). Pursuant to that order, fact discovery was 

set to close on July 10, 2019, and dispositive motions were set to be filed within 150 days after 

the close of fact discovery. See id. at 3-4. On June 18, 2019, the District Judge issued an order 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

extending all operative case deadlines, as outlined in the court’s August 10, 2018, discovery and 

scheduling order, by six months to January 10, 2020. See ECF No. 229. Pursuant to further 

stipulation, the time to conduct fact witness depositions has been extended to and including 

February 15, 2020. See ECF No. 291 (stipulated order). The docket does not reflect any requests 

for or orders approving further modification of the August 10, 2018, scheduling order. 

 Thus, all fact discovery, except fact depositions, closed on or about January 10, 

2020. The time to conduct fact depositions has been extended to February 15, 2020. 

 Plaintiffs served their requests for production, set two, on defendant AI on 

November 27, 2019. See ECF No. 325-3, pg. 37 (proof of service). Defendant AI served 

responses on December 27, 2019. See ECF No. 325-2, pg. 39 (proof of service). Plaintiffs’ 

instant motion to compel was filed on January 22, 2020. As the District Judge explained in the 

May 2016 initial scheduling order, the deadline for completion of fact discovery includes the 

filing of any necessary motions to compel. See ECF No. 54. Because plaintiff’s motion was filed 

after the deadline for completion of fact discovery – January 10, 2020 – it is clearly untimely and 

will be denied as such. 

B. Walmart’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order Regarding Depositions and 

for a Protective Order (ECF No. 332) 

By earlier motion, plaintiffs sought leave to take more than the maximum ten 

depositions allowed under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See ECF Nos. 288 (Notice of 

Motion) and 317 (Joint Statement). Arguments were heard on January 15, 2020, and the court 

issued an order on January 17, 2020. See ECF No. 323. In granting plaintiff’s motion, the court 

stated: 

Plaintiffs seek an order authorizing them to take more than the 

maximum ten deposition allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

without leave of court. See ECF No. 288 (Notice of Motion); see also ECF 

No. 317 (Joint Statement). In the notice of motion, plaintiff states they seek 

to take a total of 13 depositions. See ECF No. 288, pg. 4. In the joint 

statement, plaintiffs state they seek to take a total of 18 depositions. See ECF 

No. 317, pg. 21. To date, plaintiffs have not taken any depositions. 

Parties are limited to no more than ten depositions without 

leave of court or stipulation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i); see also 

Nevis v. Rideout Mem’l Hosp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188550, at *5-6 

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2019). The party seeking more than ten depositions bears 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 4 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 

the burden of making a particularized showing of the need for additional 

depositions. See Rideout Mem’l Hosp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188550, at 

*5-6. Where the action is complex, parties are not required to exhaust the ten 

allowable deposition prior to seeking leave to take additional depositions. 

See Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc., 2018 WL 5993585 

at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018); see also Del Campo v. American Corrective 

Counseling Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 3306496 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007) 

(“[I]t would be prejudicial to require Plaintiffs to choose the ten depositions 

to take before they know whether they will be granted more”). Finally, once 

a showing has been made, the court may relieve parties of the limitations on 

depositions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A). 

Here, the court finds plaintiffs have made the necessary 

showing as to the 18 deponents listed in the parties’ joint statement and will 

grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to take 18 depositions. While leave is 

hereby granted to take up to the 18 depositions designated by plaintiff, the 

depositions are to be completed by the previously stipulated deadline of 

February 15, 2020. As Defendant Walmart has indicated that defendant has 

depositions yet to be completed by that same deadline, the parties are 

directed to cooperate in the scheduling and coordination of all remaining 

depositions, including but not limited to scheduling depositions to proceed 

on concurrent schedules, in multiple venues to be covered by multiple 

counsel, other than just lead counsel, and depositions scheduled outside 

ordinary business hours, including early mornings, evenings and weekends. 

ECF No. 323, pgs. 10-11. 

The parties agree on the following subsequent history: 

On January 27, 2020, plaintiffs served counsel for Walmart with 

notices of depositions of Jeanne Helfrich and Robin Foshee. See ECF No. 

332 (Declaration of Catherine S. Simonsen (“Simonsen Decl.”)), ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. 

2, 3; id., ¶ 9, Ex. 8, 9. On January 28, 2020, counsel for Walmart met and 

conferred with counsel for plaintiffs regarding the deposition notices. See id., 

¶¶ 13-14. Counsel for Walmart asked plaintiffs to withdraw the Helfrich and 

Foshee deposition notices on the grounds that they exceeded the 10-

deposition limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i) and were not permitted 

by the Court’s Order of January 17, 2020, authorizing the specific 18 

depositions plaintiffs sought leave to take (which did not include the 

depositions of Ms. Helfrich or Ms. Foshee). See ECF No. 323 at 10-11. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel did not agree to withdraw the Helfrich and Foshee 

deposition notices. See id., ¶¶ 13-14, Ex. 13. 

ECF No. 342, pg. 3 (Joint Statement). 

Walmart now moves for enforcement of the court’s January 17, 2020, order permitting only those 

depositions outlined by plaintiffs in their prior filings. 

 Walmart’s motion is well-taken in that plaintiffs were granted leave to take the 

specific depositions listed in the prior joint statement. In obtaining that relief, plaintiffs made the 

required showing as to each of the witnesses listed. Neither Ms. Helfrich nor Ms. Foshee were 

listed and, as such, plaintiffs made no showing as to such witnesses. To the extent plaintiffs seek 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 5 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 

with the notices of deposition directed to Helfrich and Foshee to take more than the 18 

depositions previously authorized, Walmart’s motion will be granted. Plaintiffs shall not be 

permitted to take more than the 18 depositions for which leave has been granted. 

 In their prior motion for leave to take excess depositions, plaintiffs listed eight 

witnesses as person most knowledgeable designees of various entities under Federal Rule of Civil 

30(b)(6). See ECF No. 317, pgs. 29-33. Specifically, plaintiffs listed among the 18 depositions 

they sought leave to take the Rule 30(b)(6) designees of AI, see id. at 29 (witness no. 5), 

Walmart, see id. at 31 (witness no. 12), Pacific World, see id. (witness no. 13), Coty, see id. 

(witness no. 14), P&G, see id. (witness no. 15), Energizer, see id. (witness no. 16), KISS, see id. 

(witness no. 17), and Onyx, see id. (witness no. 18). To the extent plaintiffs now seek to 

substitute Ms. Helfrich and/or Ms. Foshee as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee listed in plaintiffs’ prior 

motion, Walmart’s motion will be denied, and such depositions may proceed, so long as the 

authorized total of 18 depositions is not exceeded. 

C. The Parties’ Cross-Motions Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition of 

Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) Witness (ECF Nos. 334 and 336) 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) provides in relevant part: 

 In its notice [of deposition] . . ., a party may name as the deponent a 

public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental 

agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the 

matters for examination. The named organization must then designate one or 

more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who 

consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each 

person designated will testify. . . . 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 

On January 15, 2020, plaintiffs served a notice of deposition for Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness. 

The notice specified 32 separate topics for examination. See ECF No. 352-2 (Walmart’s 

objections to notice, attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Erick Kuylman). Walmart 

objected to all 32 topics. See id. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 6 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7 

 During the course of the meet-and-confer process, the parties have narrowed the 

dispute to Topics 4, 5, 6, 7, and 29. See ECF No. 352, pgs. 8-9 (joint statement). According to 

the parties: 

 . . .The parties primarily disagreed about the relevant, particularity, 

and temporal scope of the topics. (citation omitted). Although Stiles agreed 

to limit the scope of the topics to the Beauty and Wet Shave categories and to 

the period of January 1, 2007, to October 1, 2014, Walmart was unwilling to 

withdraw its objections. (citation omitted). 

Id. at 9. 

The specific topics remaining at issue are as follows: 

Topic 4 Walmart’s category advisor program. 

Topic 5 Walmart’s practices, processes, and procedures for selecting 

category advisors. 

Topic 6 Walmart’s use of category advisors, including what 

information is shared with category advisors. 

Topic 7 Walmart’s practices, processes, and procedures for sharing 

price, cost, and supply in formation with product suppliers. 

Topic 29 The documents and spreadsheets that Walmart produced with 

its August 14, 2019, volume 10 production and its November 

15, 2019, production. 

ECF No. 352-2, Exhibit 1. 

Walmart refused to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify on any of these topics. See id. 

 As outlined above, during the meet-and-confer process plaintiffs agreed to limit 

the scope of Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition to the beauty and wet shave categories 

for the time between January 1, 2007, and October 1, 2014. At the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel 

agreed to further limit the scope of Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition to the time period 

between January 1, 2009, and October 1, 2014, for the “beauty” category. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ 

counsel’s representations, the following limitations shall apply to Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) 

witness deposition: 

 CATEGORY TIME PERIOD 

 Wet Shave January 1, 2007, to October 1, 2014 

 Beauty January 1, 2009, to October 1, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 7 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8 

The above-listed additional particularity specified by plaintiffs was accordingly considered with 

regard to each of the disputed topics discussed below. 

 1. Topic 4 -- Walmart’s category advisor program 

Walmart objects as follows: 

 Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information 

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any 

other applicable privilege or protection. Walmart objects to this Topic to the 

extent it seeks confidential, trade secret, competitive, business, or other 

proprietary information and reserves the right to designate any transcript(s) 

of Walmart’s designee(s) confidential as permitted under the Protective 

Order. Walmart objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, including in its use of the term “category advisor program,” 

which is not defined and Walmart interprets this Topic as it reasonably 

understands these terms. Walmart further objects to this request as 

inconsistent with Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the matters for 

examination. Walmart objects to this Topic as overly broad and unduly 

burdensome because it lacks temporary scope Walmart further objects to 

this Topic as overly broad to the extent it seeks information that is neither 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, nor proportional to the needs of the 

case because it seeks discovery beyond the scope of plaintiffs’ claims as 

plead in the Fourth Amended Complaint. 

ECF No. 352-2, pg. 7. 

Walmart refused to produce any witness to testify on this topic. See id. 

 With the narrowing of this topic to the beauty category for the time period January 

1, 2009, to October 1, 2014, and the wet shave category for the time period January 1, 2007, to 

October 1, 2014, the Court finds this topic to be described with reasonable particularity. 

Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and Walmart’s cross-motion will be denied as to Topic 4. 

 2. Topic 5 – Walmart’s practices, processes, and procedures for selecting 

category advisors 

 Walmart objects as follows: 

 Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information 

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any 

other applicable privilege or protection. Walmart objects to this Topic to the 

extent it seeks confidential, trade secret, competitive, business, or other 

proprietary information and reserves the right to designate any transcript(s) 

of Walmart’s designee(s) confidential as permitted under the Protective 

Order. Walmart objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 8 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

9 

ambiguous, including in its use of the terms “practices,” “processes,” 

“procedures,” and “category advisors,” which are not defined and Walmart 

interprets this Topic as it reasonably understands these terms. Walmart 

further objects to this request as inconsistent with Rule 30(b)(6) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it fails to describe with reasonable 

particularity the matters for examination. Walmart objects to this Topic as 

overly broad and unduly burdensome because it lacks temporary scope 

Walmart further objects to this Topic as overly broad to the extent it seeks 

information that is neither relevant to any party’s claim or defense, nor 

proportional to the needs of the case because it seeks discovery beyond the 

scope of plaintiffs’ claims as plead in the Fourth Amended Complaint. 

ECF No. 352-2, pgs. 7-8. 

Walmart refused to produce any witness to testify on this topic. See id. 

 With the narrowing of this topic to the beauty category for the time period January 

1, 2009, to October 1, 2014, and the wet shave category for the time period January 1, 2007, to 

October 1, 2014, the Court finds this topic to be described with reasonable particularity. 

Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and Walmart’s cross-motion will be denied as to Topic 5. 

 

3. Topic 6 – Walmart’s use of category advisors, including what 

information is shared with category advisors 

 Walmart objects as follows: 

 Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information 

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any 

other applicable privilege or protection. Walmart objects to this Topic to the 

extent it seeks confidential, trade secret, competitive, business, or other 

proprietary information and reserves the right to designate any transcript(s) 

of Walmart’s designee(s) confidential as permitted under the Protective 

Order. Walmart objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, including in its use of the terms “use,” “category advisors,” 

“information,” and “shared,” which are not defined and Walmart interprets 

this Topic as it reasonably understands these terms. Walmart further objects 

to this request as inconsistent with Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the 

matters for examination. Walmart objects to this Topic as overly broad and 

unduly burdensome because it lacks temporary scope Walmart further 

objects to this Topic as overly broad to the extent it seeks information that is 

neither relevant to any party’s claim or defense, nor proportional to the needs 

of the case because it seeks discovery beyond the scope of plaintiffs’ claims 

as plead in the Fourth Amended Complaint. 

ECF No. 352-2, pg. 8. 

Walmart refused to produce any witness to testify on this topic. See id. 

/ / / 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 9 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

10 

 With the narrowing of this topic to the beauty category for the time period January 

1, 2009, to October 1, 2014, and the wet shave category for the time period January 1, 2007, to 

October 1, 2014, the court finds this topic to be described with reasonable particularity. 

Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and Walmart’s cross-motion will be denied as to Topic 6. 

4. Topic 7 – Walmart’s practices, processes, and procedures for sharing 

price, cost, and supply information with product suppliers 

 Walmart objects as follows: 

Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information 

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any 

other applicable privilege or protection. Walmart objects to this Topic to the 

extent it seeks confidential, trade secret, competitive, business, or other 

proprietary information and reserves the right to designate any transcript(s) 

of Walmart’s designee(s) confidential as permitted under the Protective 

Order. Walmart objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, including in its use of the terms “practices,” “processes,” 

“procedures,” “sharing,” “price,” “cost,” “supply information,” and “product 

suppliers,” which are not defined and Walmart interprets this Topic as it 

reasonably understands these terms. Walmart further objects to this request 

as inconsistent with Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the matters for 

examination. Walmart objects to this Topic as overly broad and unduly 

burdensome because it lacks temporary scope Walmart further objects to 

this Topic as overly broad to the extent it seeks information that is neither 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, nor proportional to the needs of the 

case because it seeks discovery beyond the scope of plaintiffs’ claims as 

plead in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Walmart objects to this Topic 

because it assumes the existence of facts no tin evidence. Walmart further 

objections [sic] to this Topic on the grounds that it is unintelligible. 

ECF No. 352-2, pg. 9. 

Walmart refused to produce any witness to testify on this topic. See id. 

 To the extent this topic seeks testimony concerning the mechanics (i.e., “practices, 

processes, and procedures”) for sharing information with product suppliers, the Court finds the 

topic to be described with reasonable particularity. To the extent the topic seeks information 

beyond the mechanics of Walmart’s sharing of information with product suppliers, the court finds 

the topic to be overbroad. Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and Walmart’s cross-motion will be 

denied to the extent plaintiffs seek testimony concerning the mechanics of Walmart’s information 

sharing. The granting of this motion is without prejudice to any objections by Walmart, at the 

time of the subject deposition, to the extent plaintiffs seek testimony beyond the mechanics of 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 10 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

11 

Walmart’s information-sharing process and procedure. 

5. Topic 29 – The documents and spreadsheets that Walmart produced 

with its August 14, 2019, volume 10 production and its November 15, 

2019, production 

 Walmart objects as follows: 

 Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information 

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any 

other applicable privilege or protection. Walmart objects to this Topic on the 

grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including in its use of the terms 

“documents” and “spreadsheets,” which are not defined and Walmart 

interprets this Topic as it reasonably understands these terms. Walmart 

objects to this Topic as improper and outside the scope of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) testimony. Walmart objects to this Topic to the 

extent it seeks information that is neither relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense, nor proportional to the needs of the case because it seeks discovery 

beyond the scope of plaintiffs’ claims as plead in the Fourth Amended 

Complaint. Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information 

that is duplicative of other discovery requests propounded by Plaintiffs in 

this litigation. 

ECF No. 352-2, pg. 25. 

Walmart refused to produce any witness to testify on this topic. See id. 

 As to this topic, Walmart’s objection will be overruled. Plaintiffs should be 

permitted to ask Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness about documents Walmart produced. The 

scope of the topic is specifically limited to documents produced by Walmart on August 14, 2019, 

and November 15, 2019. Presumably, Walmart knows what these documents are and should have 

its Rule 30(b)(6) witness prepared to discuss them. Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and 

Walmart’s cross-motion will be denied as to Topic 29. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 11 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12 

III. CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant AI to provide further responses to 

requests for production, set two (ECF No. 324) is denied; 

 2. Walmart’s motion to enforce the court’s prior order regarding depositions 

and for a protective order (ECF No. 332) is resolved as follows: 

a. The motion is granted to the extent plaintiff will not be permitted to 

take more than 18 depositions, as provided in the court’s January 17, 2020, order; 

b. The motion is denied to the extent plaintiffs seek to substitute Ms. 

Helfrich and/or Ms. Foshee as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee listed in plaintiffs’ prior 

motion; 

 3. The parties cross-motions regarding plaintiffs’ notice of deposition of 

Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness (ECF Nos. 334 and 336) are resolved as follows: 

a. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations, the scope of 

Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition as to Topics 4, 5, and 6 is limited to 

the beauty category for the time period January 1, 2009, to October 1, 2014, and 

the wet shave category for the time period January 1, 2007, to October 1, 2014; 

b. Subject to the limitations on scope outlined above, plaintiffs’ 

motion is granted and Walmart’s motion is denied as to Topics 4, 5, and 6; 

c. Plaintiffs’ motion is granted and Walmart’s cross-motion is denied 

as to Topic 7 to the extent plaintiffs seek testimony concerning the mechanics of 

Walmart’s information sharing; 

d. Plaintiffs’ motion is granted and Walmart’s cross-motion is denied 

as to Topic 29. 

Dated: February 5, 2020 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 360 Filed 02/06/20 Page 12 of 12