Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05278/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05278-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware

corporation and WAL-MART REAL

ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST,a Delaware

statutory trust

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF TURLOCK, et. al., 

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV F 04-5278 OWW DLB

ORDER REQUIRING SAVE MART TO

PRODUCE UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS

PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA DUCES

TECUM

On June 17, 2005, Plaintiffs WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation and

WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, a Delaware statutory trust (“Wal-Mart”) and

SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS (“Save Mart”), a non-party, participated in an agreed upon

telephonic hearing regarding a discovery dispute relating Wal-Mart’s request that Save Mart

produce unredacted copies of documents which were previously produced in redacted form

pursuant to the Court’s order of May 10, 2005. John Kinsey appeared on behalf of Wal-Mart and

Jennifer Scott appeared on behalf of Save Mart.

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 86 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 3
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

BACKGROUND

Wal-Mart filed this action on February 11, 2004 seeking damages and declaratory relief

against defendant the City of Turlock (“the City”) claiming that the City enacted an amendment

to its zoning code (“the Ordianance”) that purposefully discriminates against out of state retailers,

such as Wal-Mart, in favor of in state retailers, such as Save Mart in violation of the Commerce

Clause of the United States Constitution. 

On July 30, 2004, Wal-Mart served Save Mart with a Deposition Subpeona Duces Tecum

(“the Subpeona”) for the production of documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

45. In the Subpeona, Wal Mart requested information regarding Save Mart’s meeting with

representatives of the City, including an August 22, 2003 meeting which Wal Mart contends

caused the City to withdraw its support for a Wal-Mart Supercenter and thereafter enact the

Ordinance which completely prohibits Wal-Mart from building its planned Supercenter within

the City. Save-Mart served objections to the Subpeona and refused to produce any documents. 

On January 28, 2005, this Court granted in part Wal-Mart’s motion to compel compliance

with the Subpeona and ordered Save Mart to produce “documents regarding or relating to

communications or meetings, or intended or anticipated communications or meetings with the

City after August 22, 2002, by Save Mart or any other person or entity relating to the Big Box

Ordinance, Wal-Mart or Wal-Mart’s Supercenter.” Save Mart moved for reconsideration by the

District Court and on May 10, 2005, Judge Wanger denied the motion for reconsideration and

required Save Mart to produce, all documents from January 1, 2003 through the present

concerning intended or actual communications with 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. 

On May 17, 2005, Save Mart produced 270 pages of documents in response to the

Subpeona. Save Mart redacted twenty-one (21) lines of text in eight (8) pages of documents. 

Save Mart contends the redacted material does not relate in any manner to actual or intended

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 86 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 3
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

communications with City Officials regarding the Big Box Ordinance or Wal-Mart’s planned

SuperCenter in Turlock and is therefore outside the scope of the Court’s modified order. Save

Mart also contends that important privacy concerns justify redacting the material from the

documents 

Wal-Mart argues there is no valid basis for the redactions. Wal-Mart argues that Save

Mart did not make the redactions on privilege grounds and there is no authority for redactions

made on “relevance” grounds.

DISCUSSION AND ORDER

The Court has reviewed the unredacted documents in camera and finds no basis for the

redactions. Save Mart contends the redactions enforce the discovery limitations set forth in the

Modified Order. The Court disagrees. The documents are admittedly responsive to Wal Mart’s

subpeona as modified and the redacted portions relate to intended communications with City

Officials regarding the Big Box Ordinance, albeit indirectly. The redacted portions also put the

communications in context. As discussed by Judge Wanger, Wal Mart is entitled to know what

was communicated to the City relating to the Big Box Ordinance and this information includes

any documents that reflect what was intended to be communicated, including but not limited to

communications with third parties. All of the redacted information falls within the Court’s order. 

While Save Mart asserts “important privacy interests” in support of the redactions, it has once

again failed to identify privacy interests warranting protection from disclosure. Accordingly,

Save Mart shall produce unredacted documents identified as SM262 through SM 00270 within

10 days of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 86 Filed 06/21/05 Page 3 of 3