Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01524/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01524-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
Defendant
Steve Wheat
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE WHEAT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 1:22-cv-01524-BAM

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR RELIEF 

IN DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

STATEMENTS AS UNTIMELY

(Docs. 68, 69, 71)

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff Steve Wheat’s requests for relief in the parties’ 

discovery disagreement statements. (See Docs. 68, 69, 71.)

On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a statement of discovery disagreement regarding 

Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 26 and 27; Plaintiff’s Request for Production, 

Set Four, No. 76; Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 7-19; and Plaintiff’s Requests for 

Admission, Set Two, Nos. 33-55. (Doc. 68.) Defendant responded with its own statement 

regarding the same discovery on October 7, 2024, arguing that Plaintiff’s statement was untimely 

as the non-expert discovery was closed except for completion of remaining treating providers. 

(Doc. 69.) On October 31, 2024, the parties filed an additional joint statement of discovery 

Case 1:22-cv-01524-BAM Document 72 Filed 11/04/24 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

disagreement regarding Plaintiff’s noticed depositions of Uriel Rozales and Jose Gonzalez on

October 17, 2024; Kent Delperdang on October 24, 2024; Luis Garcia on October 25, 2024; and 

Chad Lee on October 28, 2024 which Defendant again argued were untimely. (Doc. 71.)

On January 22, 2024, at the request of the parties and for good cause, the Court modified 

the Scheduling Order and continued the Nonexpert discovery cut-off from February 6, 2024 to 

August 31, 2024. (Doc. 38.) On August 26, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to modify 

the scheduling order to continue the non-expert discovery deadline but extended non-expert 

discovery to September 20, 2024 “solely for the purpose of permitting the depositions of 

Plaintiff’s three treating medical providers.” (Doc. 64 at 6.) On September 17, 2024, upon 

stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court issued an order modifying 

discovery dates in its prior scheduling order. (Doc. 65.) Namely, the Court extended the 

“Closure of Non-Expert Discovery Extended Solely to Complete Deposition of Plaintiff’s Three 

Treating Providers and Plaintiff’s Deposition Due to Power Outage from September 20, 2024 to 

November 1, 2024.” (Doc. 65 at 5.) The Court also continued the Expert Disclosure deadline 

from September 20, 2024 to November 22, 2024; the Supplemental Expert Disclosure deadline 

from October 18, 2024 to December 13, 2024; and the Expert Discovery Cutoff from December 

13, 2024 to January 17, 2025. (Id.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s Request to Reopen Discovery 

on October 9, 2024. (Doc. 70.)

Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests and deposition notices relate to non-expert 

discovery. (See Docs. 68, 71.) The Court clarified in its prior order on the parties’ stipulation 

that the non-expert discovery was “Extended Solely to Complete Deposition of Plaintiff’s Three 

Treating Providers and Plaintiff’s Deposition Due to Power Outage from September 20, 2024 to 

November 1, 2024.” (Doc. 65 at 5.) Non-expert discovery otherwise closed on August 31, 2024. 

(Doc. 38.) Plaintiff also implicitly acknowledged that broader non-expert discovery was closed 

given his filing of a request to reopen discovery. (See Doc. 61.) Plaintiff’s argument that an 

abbreviated docket note extended discovery is incorrect and misrepresents the Court’s order. 

(See Doc. 71 at 2.) The requests for relief contained in the discovery disagreement statements 

(Docs. 68, 69, 71) are therefore untimely.

Case 1:22-cv-01524-BAM Document 72 Filed 11/04/24 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

In light of the frivolous nature of Plaintiff's arguments, the Court declines to address in 

further detail Plaintiff's requests for relief for further discovery. Plaintiff is forewarned against 

filing frivolous and meritless motions which unduly consume judicial resources; Plaintiff's 

conduct imposes a significant burden on the Court's limited resources in reviewing and deciding 

meritless, repetitious, and voluminous filings. Plaintiff must follow the Court's orders or risk 

sanctions.

Accordingly, the requests for relief in the parties’ joint discovery disagreements (Docs. 

68, 69, 71) are DENIED as untimely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01524-BAM Document 72 Filed 11/04/24 Page 3 of 3