Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01524/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01524-5/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 AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW

(Doc. 37)

Plaintiff Steve Wheat (“Plaintiff”) alleges various employment discrimination claims

against Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (“Defendant”). In particular, Plaintiff alleges: (1) 

Age Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et seq.; (2) Age Harassment 

in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et seq.; (3) Disability Discrimination in 

Violation of Government Code section 12940, et seq.; (4) Failure to Accommodate in Violation 

of Government Code section 12940, et seq.; (5) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in 

Violation of Government Code Section 12940, et seq.; (6) Retaliation in Violation of Government 

Code Section 12940, et seq.; (7) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation 

in Violation of Government Code Section 12940, et seq.; (8) Wrongful Termination in Violation 

Case 1:22-cv-01524-BAM Document 46 Filed 03/05/24 Page 1 of 5
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

of Public Policy; and (9) Failure to Maintain and Produce Accurate Records. (Doc. 1-1, at 2.) 

The Necessity for In Camera Review

As it pertains to the in camera review, Plaintiff’s Request For Production (“RFP”) Nos. 

45-47 seek evidence relating to Jim Martinez, a purported me-too witness identified in Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, who was fired and replaced with a younger manager under 40. (Doc. 1-1 ¶ 28; Doc. 

37 at 2.) Plaintiff contends that evidence related to Mr. Martinez is relevant to Plaintiff’s 

allegations of a pattern and practice of targeting older managers for termination. (Doc. 37 at 2.) 

Defendant argues that the Court already provided guidance on this issue and noted that Plaintiff’s 

allegations do not demonstrate a broader conspiracy. (Id. at 3.) To resolve the issue, the Court 

directed Defendant to submit the Martinez-related documents to the Court for in camera review.

1

(Doc. 41.)

Description of Documents Submitted for In Camera Review

On February 21, 2024, the Court received documents from Defendant submitted for in 

camera review, which consist of electronic documents listed as: Jim Martinez’s Employment 

Record, Jim Martinez’s Associate Record, Jim Martinez’s Employment History, Jim Martinez’s 

Evaluations, Jim Martinez’s Exit Interview. Also submitted by Defendant was a brief letter 

explaining what the documents contained.

This Order is entered after considering each of the documents submitted by Defendant and 

conducting the in camera review.

Analysis

Courts generally tailor “me too” discovery to locations and decision-makers alleged to 

have participated in the discriminatory conduct. Robinson v. PPG Indus., Inc., No. CV 19-04033 

ODW (RAOx), 2021 WL 4497222, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2021) (understanding “me too” 

evidence to mean other complaints of the type of discrimination alleged by a plaintiff); see also 

Winet v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., No. 20cv14 W (BGS), 2020 WL 6449230, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 

1 At a September 6, 2023 status conference, the Court had provided guidance on the scope of "me too" discovery, 

noting that such discovery may be limited to the supervisors involved in Plaintiff's case and the site where Plaintiff 

worked based on the allegations in the complaint; however, if discovery discloses broader involvement by other 

supervisory personnel, Plaintiff would not precluded from expanding the scope of "me too" discovery. (Doc. 25.)

Case 1:22-cv-01524-BAM Document 46 Filed 03/05/24 Page 2 of 5
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

Nov. 3, 2020) (concluding in FEHA action that only relevant discovery within the scope of 

request for production of all complaints of discrimination received by company for certain period 

prior to plaintiff’s termination “would be complaints by employees of age or disability 

discrimination against the person(s) who caused the adverse employment action(s)”); Razo v. 

Timec Co., Inc., No. 15-cv-03414-MEJ, 2016 WL 1623938, at *3 (N.D. Cal. April 21, 2016) 

(limiting discovery to complaints filed up to two years before plaintiff's layoff against supervisors 

involved in plaintiff's case and site where plaintiff worked); Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,

No. CV 11-03892 AHM (SSx), 2012 WL 12884048, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (limiting “me 

too” discovery and finding requests for “similar complaints of gender and disability 

discrimination made by any employee against any other employee in the Company and in the 

Pacific Central District, respectively, are impermissibly overbroad”).

Courts have limited “me too” discovery where the complaint fails to include concrete 

allegations supporting a pattern or practice extending beyond the relevant facility. See, e.g.,

Emerson v. Iron Mountain Info. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 20-cv-08607-YGR (AGT), 2021 WL 

8085489, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021) (“Given the lack of concrete allegations supporting a 

pattern and practice of discrimination extending outside of Livermore and throughout California, 

the Court won’t require Iron Mountain to conduct state-wide “me too” discovery at this time. 

Emerson hasn't demonstrated that this state-wide discovery is “proportional to the needs of the 

case.” FRCP 26(b)(1)”); Razo, 2016 WL 1623938, at *3 (limiting discovery to facility where 

plaintiff worked because plaintiff’s complaint did not allege a broad, company-wide culture 

sanctioning discrimination); Constance Hanson-poulsen v. Dep’t of Def. of the USA, No. 2:16-cv05786-DMG-AFMx, 2020 WL 2043999, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2020) (concluding that 

“discovery of relevant me-too evidence may go beyond a plaintiff's work location and supervisor 

if the plaintiff can show a link between the discrimination/harassment alleged in the complaint 

and other locations, complainants or decision makers”); cf. Vasquez v. O’reilly Auto Enterprises, 

LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01099-DAD-SAB, 2022 WL 1645145, at *9 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2022) 

(allowing for production of statewide data to allow for comparison of similarly-situated assistant 

managers where plaintiff laid off as part of nationwide reduction in force).

Case 1:22-cv-01524-BAM Document 46 Filed 03/05/24 Page 3 of 5
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

Here, the documents submitted in camera show that the locations, decision-makers, and 

time periods are unrelated to Plaintiff’s employment. First, the locations of employment are 

different. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to center on events at the Walmart Distribution Center 

(6021) in Porterville, California, and the actions of the Operations Manager - Uriel Rosales, the 

General Manager - Kent Delperdang, and Luis Garcia. (See generally Complaint, Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 

7-10, 11, 16-19, 20-26.) As shown from the in camera documents, Mr. Martinez worked at 

facility 6021 (Plaintiff’s location), but Mr. Martinez stopped working at facility 6021 in 2006 and 

worked at a different location until his termination in 2018. In addition, the supervisors are 

different. The documents submitted in camera show that Mr. Martinez was never supervised by 

Plaintiff’s alleged wrongdoers, Uriel Rosales, Kent Delperdang, or Luis Garcia. (See Id. at ¶¶ 8,

11-19, 20-26.) Further, the relevant employment time frames are too distant. Mr. Martinez’s 

employment at Plaintiff’s facility (6021) ceased in 2006, more than a decade before Plaintiff’s 

termination in 2021. Thus, the locations of work, the supervisors, and the time periods are not 

similar to Plaintiff’s employment.

There appear to be few, if any, specific allegations relative to a pattern and practice of 

discrimination extending beyond either the Porterville facility or the decision-makers alleged in 

the complaint. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 15 [“Also in 2019, the supervisor program at Mr. Wheat’s store 

changed, and managers began to train and "mentor" lead associates, ostensibly so the lead 

associates could cover for the managers when they weren’t there. All the managers knew that this 

was an agenda to push out the older managers and replace them with the younger lead 

associates.”], 23 [all mangers in his store were asked to take “competency test”].) Indeed, the 

only other specific example of alleged discrimination to demonstrate pattern and practice 

involved Plaintiff’s former manager, James Martinez. (Id. at ¶ 28 [“On information and belief, 

Defendants have a pattern and practice of firing older managers and replacing them with younger 

ones. James (‘Jim’) Martinez, Mr. Wheat’s first manager, was fired along with 4-5 other senior 

managers, who were all replaced by someone younger.”]) Plaintiff alleges that the “supervisor 

program” changed in 2019, after Mr. Martinez was terminated in 2018. (Id. at ¶ 15.) The in 

camera documents show that Mr. Martinez was terminated from a different facility, and by 

Case 1:22-cv-01524-BAM Document 46 Filed 03/05/24 Page 4 of 5
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

different supervisors, than Plaintiff. Therefore, Mr. Martinez’s employment records are not 

relevant to the alleged claims.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s request to compel production of documents for Plaintiff’s RFP’s Nos. 45-47 

(Doc. 37) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01524-BAM Document 46 Filed 03/05/24 Page 5 of 5