Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05278/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05278-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

{6167/041/00169184.DOC} 1 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS’ REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER 

RESETTING HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

SAGASER, JONES & HAHESY

2445 Capitol Street, 2nd Floor 

Post Office Box 1632 

Fresno, California 93717-1632 

Telephone: (559) 233-4800 

Timothy Jones #119841 

William C. Hahesy #105743 

John P. Kinsey #215916 

Attorneys for: Petitioners and Plaintiffs Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, a Delaware statutory trust. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO DIVISION 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, and WAL-MART REAL 

ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, a Delaware 

statutory trust, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF TURLOCK, TURLOCK CITY 

COUNCIL, and DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. F-04-5278 OWW DLB 

ORDER DENYING SAVE MART 

SUPERMARKETS’ REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION; ORDER 

RESETTING HEARING DATE FOR 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 

 Non-Party Save Mart Supermarkets’ (“Save Mart”) Request for Reconsideration 

by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling, Objections Thereto and Request for Oral 

Argument (“Request for Reconsideration”) was heard by this Court on April 18, 2005. Natalie 

M. Webber of Herum, Crabtree & Brown appeared on behalf of Save Mart; Benjamin P. Fay of 

Jarvis, Fay & Doporto appeared on behalf of Defendants the City of Turlock and Turlock City 

Council; and William C. Hahesy and John P. Kinsey of Sagaser, Jones & Hahesy appeared on 

behalf of Plaintiffs Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust 

(collectively “Wal-Mart”). 

 Save Mart’s Request for Reconsideration concerns the January 28, 2005, Order 

of United States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck Granting in Part Motion to Compel 

Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum (the “January 28, 2005, Order”). The January 28, 

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 82 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 4
{6167/041/00169184.DOC} 2 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS’ REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER 

RESETTING HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

2005, Order granted Wal-Mart’s November 23, 2004, Motion to Compel Compliance with 

Subpoena Duces Tecum in part, and ordered Save Mart to produce certain documents in 

response to the subpoena duces tecum issued July 29, 2004, and served upon Save Mart’s 

custodian of records on July 30, 2004 (the “Subpoena”). The addendum to the Subpoena 

requested the production of 67 categories of documents. On February 25, 2005, Save Mart 

requested reconsideration of the January 28, 2005, Order, and a hearing on its request was 

heard before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge, on April 18, 2005. 

 After consideration of the moving and opposing papers, arguments of counsel, 

the Court’s file in this proceeding, all other matters presented to the Court, and good cause 

appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The January 28, 2005, Order of United States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck 

Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum is MODIFIED 

as follows: 

 a. Save Mart shall make available to Wal-Mart for inspection and copying, 

no later than May 18, 2005, the following categories of documents requested under the 

Subpoena: 

i. Requests 1-4: Save Mart is ordered to produce all responsive documents; 

ii. Requests 5-28: To the extent not produced in response to previous 

requests, Save Mart is ordered to produce all responsive documents for the period January 1, 

2003, through the present, concerning intended or actual communications with any employee, 

official, or representative of the City of Turlock regarding any proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter 

within the City of Turlock and/or a “big box” ordinance concerning the City of Turlock; 

iii. Requests 29-59: To the extent not produced in response to previous 

requests, Save Mart is ordered to produce all responsive documents for the period January 1, 

2003, through the present, concerning intended or actual communications with any employee, 

official, or representative of the City of Turlock regarding any proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter 

within the City of Turlock and/or a “big box” ordinance concerning the City of Turlock; 

/// 

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 82 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 4
{6167/041/00169184.DOC} 3 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS’ REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER 

RESETTING HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

iv. Requests 59-60: To the extent not produced in response to previous 

requests, Save Mart is ordered to produce all responsive documents; and 

v. Requests 61-67: To the extent not produced in response to previous 

requests, Save Mart is ordered to produce all responsive documents for the period January 1, 

2003, through the present, concerning intended or actual communications with any employee, 

official, or representative of the City of Turlock regarding any proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter 

within the City of Turlock and/or a “big box” ordinance concerning the City of Turlock. 

 b. Save Mart believes that the Court’s April 18, 2005, ruling encompassed 

only actual or intended communications with the City. Wal-Mart does not believe the Court’s 

ruling was so limited. Wal-Mart believes that Save Mart must produce all responsive 

documents for the period January 1, 2003, through the present, regarding any proposed WalMart Supercenter within the City of Turlock and/or a “big box” ordinance concerning the City 

of Turlock. Wal-Mart and Save Mart, however, have not been able to resolve this dispute 

because the transcript of the Court’s April 18, 2005, proceeding will not be available until the 

week of May 16, 2005. As such, Wal-Mart and Save Mart have agreed to the production 

specified in paragraph (1)(a) above with the understanding that Wal-Mart may seek to modify 

the under upon review of the transcript. Once the transcript is received, if Wal-Mart desires to 

seek modification of the order, it will first meet and confer with Save Mart’s counsel. If the 

parties can agree, a modified order will be submitted to the Court. If the parties cannot agree, 

the parties will submit a letter to the Court explaining their position, attaching a copy of the 

transcript and a proposed modified order.

 c. On or before May 4, 2005, Save Mart, at its option, may submit to the 

Court to conduct an in camera inspection of any responsive documents containing information 

protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. The Court 

shall review any such documents, and issue a future decision concerning the production of said 

documents. 

/// 

/// 

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 82 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 4
{6167/041/00169184.DOC} 4 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS’ REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER 

RESETTING HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

 d. Save Mart may designate documents as “confidential” pursuant to the 

terms of the [Proposed] Second Amended Protective Order attached hereto and incorporated 

herein as Exhibit “A.” 

2. The hearing on Defendants’ March 29, 2005, Motion for Summary Judgment, 

or in the Alternative Partial Summary Judgment, which was previously set for May 23, 2005, 

shall be continued until July 11, 2005. Plaintiff’s opposition papers are due June 20, 2005. 

This Order, however, is made without prejudice to the parties to seek any further continuance 

of the hearing on the above motion for summary judgment. 

DATED: May 10 , 2005. 

By /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

United States District Judge 

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 

DATED: June 2 , 2005. JARVIS, FAY & DOPORTO

By /s/ Benjamin P. Fay 

Benjamin P. Fay, Attorneys for Defendants 

DATED: June 2 , 2005. HERUM, CRABTREE & BROWN

By /s/ Jennifer Scott 

Jennifer Scott, Attorneys for Non-Party 

Save Mart Supermarkets 

DATED: June 4 , 2005. SAGASER, JONES & HAHESY 

By /s/ John P. Kinsey 

John P. Kinsey, Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 82 Filed 06/03/05 Page 4 of 4