Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01524/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01524-10/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 TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DEPOSITIONS

ORDER VACATING DECEMBER 6, 2024 

HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

(Doc. 73)

On November 4, 2024, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s requests for 

discovery relief as untimely, noting that the Court’s September 17, 2024 order on the parties’ 

stipulation clarified that 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” and non-expert discovery otherwise closed on August 

31, 2024. (See Doc. 38, Doc. 65 at 5, Doc. 72 at 2.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s argument 

that an abbreviated docket note extended discovery was incorrect and misrepresented the Court’s 

order. (See Doc. 71 at 2, Doc. 72 at 2.) The Court’s order stated that November 1 was the

extended discovery cut off solely for the specifically identified deponents. (See Doc. 65 at 5 

(“Closure of Discovery Extended Solely to Complete Plaintiff’s Deposition, Complete Dr. Tyler 

May’s deposition, and take the deposition of Davina Uchegbu in Modification of Docket No. 

Case 1:22-cv-01524-BAM Document 74 Filed 11/14/24 Page 1 of 2
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

59.”).) The Court forewarned Plaintiff “against filing frivolous and meritless motions which 

unduly consume judicial resources;” noted that “Plaintiff's conduct imposes a significant burden 

on the Court's limited resources in reviewing and deciding meritless, repetitious, and voluminous 

filings;” and cautioned that “Plaintiff must follow the Court's orders or risk sanctions.” (Doc. 72 

at 3.)

On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Depositions of Uriel 

Rosalez, Kent Delperdang, Luis Garcia, Chad Lee and Jose Gonzalez and a Request for 

Monetary Sanctions Against Walmart in the Amount of $4,260. (Doc. 73.) Plaintiff again 

argues that the Court’s September 17, 2024 order “unambiguously states: ‘Closure of NonExpert Discovery due 11/01/2024’” and therefore non-expert discovery remained open for 

Plaintiff’s intended depositions until November 1, 2024. (Doc. 73 at 4.)

Given Plaintiff’s disregard for the Court’s prior orders and warnings against 

misrepresenting the Court’s orders or further burdening the Court's limited resources, Plaintiff’s 

counsel is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE for the failure to properly follow the Court’s orders. 

Counsel shall respond to the Order to Show Cause in writing no later than November 20, 2024

by filing a brief of no more than five (5) pages explaining why the motion to compel is not 

duplicative of Plaintiff’s prior filings and whether Plaintiff misrepresents the Court’s orders. 

Counsel may also respond to this Order to Show Cause by withdrawing the apparently 

duplicative motion to compel (Doc. 73). Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for 

the imposition of sanctions.

To avoid burdening the Court’s limited resources, Defendant need not respond to 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel until this Order to Show Cause is resolved, and the Court requests a 

response from Defendant. The motion hearing set for December 6, 2024 is therefore 

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01524-BAM Document 74 Filed 11/14/24 Page 2 of 2