Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05278/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05278-2/pdf.json

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

---

{6167/041/00170096.DOC} 1 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE & ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL 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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

MODIFYING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND ENLARGING 

PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR 

DEFENDANTS CITY OF 

TURLOCK’S AND TURLOCK 

CITY COUNCIL’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN 

THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 

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

(collectively “Wal-Mart”) and Defendants the City of Turlock and Turlock City Council (the 

“City”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as 

follows: 

 WHEREAS on March 29, 2005, the City filed its Motion for Summary 

Judgment, or in the Alternative Partial Summary Judgment (the “Motion for Summary 

Judgment”), which was 51 pages in length; 

 WHEREAS the Court’s Standing Order in all Civil Cases Assigned to U.S. 

District Judge Oliver W. Wanger requires that “all briefs or memoranda in civil cases shall not 

exceed 25 pages and . . . [r]eply briefs filed by moving parties shall not exceed 10 pages”; 

/// 

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 78 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 3
{6167/041/00170096.DOC} 2 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE & ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL 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

 WHEREAS the parties agree that a page limit of more than 25 pages is needed 

in order for the City to present, and Wal-Mart to oppose, the City’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment; 

 WHEREAS the parties agree that a page limit of more than 10 pages is needed 

for the City’s reply brief; 

 WHEREAS, in light of these proposed page limitations, the parties wish to 

accommodate the Court by affording the Court additional time to review the briefing submitted 

by the parties relating to the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment; 

 WHEREAS Wal-Mart and several third-parties subject to Rule 45 subpoenas 

served by Wal-Mart are in disagreement regarding the scope of the range of documents ordered 

produced by the Court during the April 18, 2005, hearing on Wal-Mart’s Motion to Compel 

Save Mart’s Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum; 

 WHEREAS Wal-Mart and Save Mart will likely have to engage in further 

briefing (either formally or by letter) in order to have their disagreement regarding the scope of 

the range of documents ordered produced by the Court during the April 18, 2005, hearing 

resolved; 

 WHEREAS Wal-Mart has also been unable to come to an agreement with 

Safeway, Inc., regarding its production of any responsive documents; 

 WHEREAS Wal-Mart’s pending Motion to Compel Safeway’s Compliance 

with Subpoena Duces Tecum is currently being transferred to the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of California, and likely will not be heard by this Court until 

approximately late June 2005; and 

 WHEREAS Wal-Mart seeks to use documents produced by the above thirdparties in several party and non-party depositions before filing its brief opposing the City’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 78 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 3
{6167/041/00170096.DOC} 3 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE & ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL 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

 IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED that: 

 1. Defendants are granted leave to file a brief of 51 pages in length in 

support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Partial Summary 

Judgment; 

 2. Plaintiffs shall file their brief opposing Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment, or in the Alternative Partial Summary Judgment on or before August 1, 2005, which 

shall not exceed 51 pages in length; 

 3. Defendants shall file their reply brief on or before August 15, 2005, which 

shall not exceed 20 pages in length; 

 4. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the 

Alternative Partial Summary Judgment, shall be continued to August 29, 2005; 

DATED: May 20, 2005. JARVIS, FAY & DOPORTO

By ______________/s/__________________ 

Benjamin P. Fay, Attorneys for Defendants 

DATED: May 20, 2005. SAGASER, JONES & HAHESY 

By ______________/s/___________________

John P. Kinsey, Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

ORDER

 The court having reviewed the foregoing Stipulation and good cause appearing 

therefor: 

 IT IS SO ORDERED: 

 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

DATED: May _24__, 2005 _____________________________________ 

 Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 1:04-cv-05278-OWW -DLB Document 78 Filed 05/27/05 Page 3 of 3