Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al

Filing 360

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 2/5/2020 DENYING 324 Motion to Compel; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 332 Motion for Protective Order; GRANTING 334 Motion to Compel and DENYING 336 Motion for Protective Order as t o Topic 7 to the extent plaintiffs seek testimony concerning the mechanics of Walmart's information sharing as well as to Topics 4, 5, 6, and 29. Pursuant to plaintiffs' counsel's representations, the scope of Walmart's Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition as to Topics 4, 5, and 6 is limited to the beauty category for the time period January 1, 2009, to October 1, 2014, and the wet shave category for the time period January 1, 2007, to October 1, 2014. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHARIDAN STILES, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:14-CV-2234-MCE-DMC

v.

ORDER

WALMART, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

AND RELATED COUNTER-ACTIONS

18
19

Plaintiffs, who are proceeding with retained counsel, bring this civil action

20

alleging intellectual property and antitrust claims. Pending before the court are the following four

21

discovery motions:

22

Motions Filed by Plaintiffs

23

ECF No. 324

Motion to compel defendant American International Industries,
Inc., (AI) to provide further responses to requests for production,
set two.

ECF No. 334

Motion to compel deposition testimony from Walmart’s Rule
30(b)(6) witness.

24
25
26
27

///

28

///
1

1

Motions Filed by Walmart

2

ECF No. 332

Motion to enforce court’s order regarding depositions and for
a protective order.

ECF No. 336
4

Motion for a protective order regarding Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6)
witness.

5

The parties have filed joint statements regarding these discovery disputes. See ECF Nos. 325,

6

342, and 352. The parties’ requests to seal documents in connection with these motions and

7

responses thereto (ECF Nos. 326, 329, 330, 348, and 353) will be addressed by separate order.

3

Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant AI to provide further discovery responses

8
9

was submitted without oral argument. See ECF No. 331. The parties appeared before the

10

undersigned in Redding, California, on February 5, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., on stipulated shortened

11

notice for arguments on the remaining motions. Brian Dunne, Esq., and Erick Kuylman, Esq.,

12

appeared for plaintiffs. Catherine Simonsen, Esq., appeared for Walmart. Also appearing was

13

Karen Jacobsen, Esq., for non-parties Jeanne Helfrich and Walgreen Co. Following oral

14

argument, the remaining motions were submitted.

15
I. SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES

16
17

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant AI to Provide Further Responses to
Requests for Production, Set Two (ECF No. 324)

18
19

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling defendant AI to provide further responses to

20

request for production nos. 63, 65-76, 79-80, 85-86, 91-92, and 97-98. According to plaintiffs,

21

the discovery requests at issue “seek information regarding Walmart’s Category Advisor

22

Program.” ECF No. 325, pg. 18 (joint statement). In response to each of these requests,

23

defendant AI raised a number of objections and stated that, subject to and without waiving its

24

objections, it had already produced all responsive non-privileged documents in its possession,

25

custody, or control. See e.g. ECF No. 325-2, pg. 9 (AI’s response to request no. 63).

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

Walmart’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order Regarding Depositions and
for a Protective Order (ECF No. 332)

2
Walmart seeks an order to enforce the court’s January 17, 2020, order permitting

3
4

plaintiffs to take the depositions of up to 18 specified individuals. In particular, Walmart seeks a

5

protective order precluding plaintiffs from taking the depositions of Jeanne Helfrich and Robin

6

Foshee. See ECF No. 342, pg. 3 (joint statement).

7

The Parties’ Cross-Motions Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition of
Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) Witness (ECF Nos. 334 and 336)

8
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Walmart to produce its Rule 30(b)(6)

9
10

witness(es) to testify on five disputed topics. See ECF No. 352, pgs. 8-9 (joint statement).

11

Walmart seeks a protective order precluding such deposition testimony. See id.

12
II. DISCUSSION

13
14

A.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant AI to Provide Further Responses to
Requests for Production, Set Two (ECF No. 324)

15
16

As AI notes in the joint statement, plaintiffs’ motion is untimely. On May 20,

17

2016, the District Judge issued an initial scheduling order upon commencement of this action.

18

See ECF No. 54. In that order, the court addressed discovery as follows:

19

23

All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be
completed no later than three hundred sixty-five (365) days from the filing
of the original complaint in the action. In this context, “completed”
means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all
depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery
shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where
discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to
compel discovery must be notice on the magistrate judge’s calendar in
accordance with the Local Rules. (footnote omitted).

24

Id. at 2 (bold added).

25

On August 10, 2018, the court issued a stipulated modified discovery and

20
21
22

26

scheduling order. See ECF No. 146 (stipulated order). Pursuant to that order, fact discovery was

27

set to close on July 10, 2019, and dispositive motions were set to be filed within 150 days after

28

the close of fact discovery. See id. at 3-4. On June 18, 2019, the District Judge issued an order
3

1

extending all operative case deadlines, as outlined in the court’s August 10, 2018, discovery and

2

scheduling order, by six months to January 10, 2020. See ECF No. 229. Pursuant to further

3

stipulation, the time to conduct fact witness depositions has been extended to and including

4

February 15, 2020. See ECF No. 291 (stipulated order). The docket does not reflect any requests

5

for or orders approving further modification of the August 10, 2018, scheduling order.

6
7

Thus, all fact discovery, except fact depositions, closed on or about January 10,
2020. The time to conduct fact depositions has been extended to February 15, 2020.

8

Plaintiffs served their requests for production, set two, on defendant AI on

9

November 27, 2019. See ECF No. 325-3, pg. 37 (proof of service). Defendant AI served

10

responses on December 27, 2019. See ECF No. 325-2, pg. 39 (proof of service). Plaintiffs’

11

instant motion to compel was filed on January 22, 2020. As the District Judge explained in the

12

May 2016 initial scheduling order, the deadline for completion of fact discovery includes the

13

filing of any necessary motions to compel. See ECF No. 54. Because plaintiff’s motion was filed

14

after the deadline for completion of fact discovery – January 10, 2020 – it is clearly untimely and

15

will be denied as such.

16

B.

17
18

Walmart’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order Regarding Depositions and
for a Protective Order (ECF No. 332)
By earlier motion, plaintiffs sought leave to take more than the maximum ten

19

depositions allowed under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See ECF Nos. 288 (Notice of

20

Motion) and 317 (Joint Statement). Arguments were heard on January 15, 2020, and the court

21

issued an order on January 17, 2020. See ECF No. 323. In granting plaintiff’s motion, the court

22

stated:

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs seek an order authorizing them to take more than the
maximum ten deposition allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
without leave of court. See ECF No. 288 (Notice of Motion); see also ECF
No. 317 (Joint Statement). In the notice of motion, plaintiff states they seek
to take a total of 13 depositions. See ECF No. 288, pg. 4. In the joint
statement, plaintiffs state they seek to take a total of 18 depositions. See ECF
No. 317, pg. 21. To date, plaintiffs have not taken any depositions.
Parties are limited to no more than ten depositions without
leave of court or stipulation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i); see also
Nevis v. Rideout Mem’l Hosp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188550, at *5-6
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2019). The party seeking more than ten depositions bears
4

1

12

the burden of making a particularized showing of the need for additional
depositions. See Rideout Mem’l Hosp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188550, at
*5-6. Where the action is complex, parties are not required to exhaust the ten
allowable deposition prior to seeking leave to take additional depositions.
See Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc., 2018 WL 5993585
at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018); see also Del Campo v. American Corrective
Counseling Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 3306496 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007)
(“[I]t would be prejudicial to require Plaintiffs to choose the ten depositions
to take before they know whether they will be granted more”). Finally, once
a showing has been made, the court may relieve parties of the limitations on
depositions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A).
Here, the court finds plaintiffs have made the necessary
showing as to the 18 deponents listed in the parties’ joint statement and will
grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to take 18 depositions. While leave is
hereby granted to take up to the 18 depositions designated by plaintiff, the
depositions are to be completed by the previously stipulated deadline of
February 15, 2020. As Defendant Walmart has indicated that defendant has
depositions yet to be completed by that same deadline, the parties are
directed to cooperate in the scheduling and coordination of all remaining
depositions, including but not limited to scheduling depositions to proceed
on concurrent schedules, in multiple venues to be covered by multiple
counsel, other than just lead counsel, and depositions scheduled outside
ordinary business hours, including early mornings, evenings and weekends.

13

ECF No. 323, pgs. 10-11.

14

The parties agree on the following subsequent history:

15

21

On January 27, 2020, plaintiffs served counsel for Walmart with
notices of depositions of Jeanne Helfrich and Robin Foshee. See ECF No.
332 (Declaration of Catherine S. Simonsen (“Simonsen Decl.”)), ¶¶ 3-4, Ex.
2, 3; id., ¶ 9, Ex. 8, 9. On January 28, 2020, counsel for Walmart met and
conferred with counsel for plaintiffs regarding the deposition notices. See id.,
¶¶ 13-14. Counsel for Walmart asked plaintiffs to withdraw the Helfrich and
Foshee deposition notices on the grounds that they exceeded the 10deposition limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i) and were not permitted
by the Court’s Order of January 17, 2020, authorizing the specific 18
depositions plaintiffs sought leave to take (which did not include the
depositions of Ms. Helfrich or Ms. Foshee). See ECF No. 323 at 10-11.
Plaintiffs’ counsel did not agree to withdraw the Helfrich and Foshee
deposition notices. See id., ¶¶ 13-14, Ex. 13.

22

ECF No. 342, pg. 3 (Joint Statement).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

16
17
18
19
20

23

Walmart now moves for enforcement of the court’s January 17, 2020, order permitting only those

24

depositions outlined by plaintiffs in their prior filings.

25

Walmart’s motion is well-taken in that plaintiffs were granted leave to take the

26

specific depositions listed in the prior joint statement. In obtaining that relief, plaintiffs made the

27

required showing as to each of the witnesses listed. Neither Ms. Helfrich nor Ms. Foshee were

28

listed and, as such, plaintiffs made no showing as to such witnesses. To the extent plaintiffs seek
5

1

with the notices of deposition directed to Helfrich and Foshee to take more than the 18

2

depositions previously authorized, Walmart’s motion will be granted. Plaintiffs shall not be

3

permitted to take more than the 18 depositions for which leave has been granted.

4

In their prior motion for leave to take excess depositions, plaintiffs listed eight

5

witnesses as person most knowledgeable designees of various entities under Federal Rule of Civil

6

30(b)(6). See ECF No. 317, pgs. 29-33. Specifically, plaintiffs listed among the 18 depositions

7

they sought leave to take the Rule 30(b)(6) designees of AI, see id. at 29 (witness no. 5),

8

Walmart, see id. at 31 (witness no. 12), Pacific World, see id. (witness no. 13), Coty, see id.

9

(witness no. 14), P&G, see id. (witness no. 15), Energizer, see id. (witness no. 16), KISS, see id.

10

(witness no. 17), and Onyx, see id. (witness no. 18). To the extent plaintiffs now seek to

11

substitute Ms. Helfrich and/or Ms. Foshee as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee listed in plaintiffs’ prior

12

motion, Walmart’s motion will be denied, and such depositions may proceed, so long as the

13

authorized total of 18 depositions is not exceeded.

14

C.

15

The Parties’ Cross-Motions Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition of
Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) Witness (ECF Nos. 334 and 336)

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) provides in relevant part:

17

20

In its notice [of deposition] . . ., a party may name as the deponent a
public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental
agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the
matters for examination. The named organization must then designate one or
more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who
consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each
person designated will testify. . . .

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).

18
19

22

On January 15, 2020, plaintiffs served a notice of deposition for Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness.

23

The notice specified 32 separate topics for examination. See ECF No. 352-2 (Walmart’s

24

objections to notice, attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Erick Kuylman). Walmart

25

objected to all 32 topics. See id.

26

///

27

///

28

///
6

1

During the course of the meet-and-confer process, the parties have narrowed the

2

dispute to Topics 4, 5, 6, 7, and 29. See ECF No. 352, pgs. 8-9 (joint statement). According to

3

the parties:

4

6

. . .The parties primarily disagreed about the relevant, particularity,
and temporal scope of the topics. (citation omitted). Although Stiles agreed
to limit the scope of the topics to the Beauty and Wet Shave categories and to
the period of January 1, 2007, to October 1, 2014, Walmart was unwilling to
withdraw its objections. (citation omitted).

7

Id. at 9.

5

8

The specific topics remaining at issue are as follows:

9

Topic 4

Walmart’s category advisor program.

10

Topic 5

Walmart’s practices, processes, and procedures for selecting
category advisors.

Topic 6

Walmart’s use of category advisors, including what
information is shared with category advisors.

Topic 7

Walmart’s practices, processes, and procedures for sharing
price, cost, and supply in formation with product suppliers.

Topic 29

The documents and spreadsheets that Walmart produced with
its August 14, 2019, volume 10 production and its November
15, 2019, production.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ECF No. 352-2, Exhibit 1.
Walmart refused to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify on any of these topics. See id.
As outlined above, during the meet-and-confer process plaintiffs agreed to limit

20

the scope of Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition to the beauty and wet shave categories

21

for the time between January 1, 2007, and October 1, 2014. At the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel

22

agreed to further limit the scope of Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition to the time period

23

between January 1, 2009, and October 1, 2014, for the “beauty” category. Pursuant to plaintiffs’

24

counsel’s representations, the following limitations shall apply to Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6)

25

witness deposition:

26

CATEGORY

27

Wet Shave

January 1, 2007, to October 1, 2014

28

Beauty

January 1, 2009, to October 1, 2014

TIME PERIOD

7

1
2

The above-listed additional particularity specified by plaintiffs was accordingly considered with

3

regard to each of the disputed topics discussed below.

4

1.

5

Walmart objects as follows:

6

Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any
other applicable privilege or protection. Walmart objects to this Topic to the
extent it seeks confidential, trade secret, competitive, business, or other
proprietary information and reserves the right to designate any transcript(s)
of Walmart’s designee(s) confidential as permitted under the Protective
Order. Walmart objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, including in its use of the term “category advisor program,”
which is not defined and Walmart interprets this Topic as it reasonably
understands these terms. Walmart further objects to this request as
inconsistent with Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the matters for
examination. Walmart objects to this Topic as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it lacks temporary scope Walmart further objects to
this Topic as overly broad to the extent it seeks information that is neither
relevant to any party’s claim or defense, nor proportional to the needs of the
case because it seeks discovery beyond the scope of plaintiffs’ claims as
plead in the Fourth Amended Complaint.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Topic 4 -- Walmart’s category advisor program

ECF No. 352-2, pg. 7.
Walmart refused to produce any witness to testify on this topic. See id.
With the narrowing of this topic to the beauty category for the time period January

19

1, 2009, to October 1, 2014, and the wet shave category for the time period January 1, 2007, to

20

October 1, 2014, the Court finds this topic to be described with reasonable particularity.

21

Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and Walmart’s cross-motion will be denied as to Topic 4.

22
23

2.

Topic 5 – Walmart’s practices, processes, and procedures for selecting
category advisors

24

Walmart objects as follows:

25

Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any
other applicable privilege or protection. Walmart objects to this Topic to the
extent it seeks confidential, trade secret, competitive, business, or other
proprietary information and reserves the right to designate any transcript(s)
of Walmart’s designee(s) confidential as permitted under the Protective
Order. Walmart objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and
8

26
27
28

1

6

ambiguous, including in its use of the terms “practices,” “processes,”
“procedures,” and “category advisors,” which are not defined and Walmart
interprets this Topic as it reasonably understands these terms. Walmart
further objects to this request as inconsistent with Rule 30(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it fails to describe with reasonable
particularity the matters for examination. Walmart objects to this Topic as
overly broad and unduly burdensome because it lacks temporary scope
Walmart further objects to this Topic as overly broad to the extent it seeks
information that is neither relevant to any party’s claim or defense, nor
proportional to the needs of the case because it seeks discovery beyond the
scope of plaintiffs’ claims as plead in the Fourth Amended Complaint.

7

ECF No. 352-2, pgs. 7-8.

2
3
4
5

8

Walmart refused to produce any witness to testify on this topic. See id.
With the narrowing of this topic to the beauty category for the time period January

9
10

1, 2009, to October 1, 2014, and the wet shave category for the time period January 1, 2007, to

11

October 1, 2014, the Court finds this topic to be described with reasonable particularity.

12

Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and Walmart’s cross-motion will be denied as to Topic 5.

13

3.

Topic 6 – Walmart’s use of category advisors, including what
information is shared with category advisors

14
15

Walmart objects as follows:

16

Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any
other applicable privilege or protection. Walmart objects to this Topic to the
extent it seeks confidential, trade secret, competitive, business, or other
proprietary information and reserves the right to designate any transcript(s)
of Walmart’s designee(s) confidential as permitted under the Protective
Order. Walmart objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, including in its use of the terms “use,” “category advisors,”
“information,” and “shared,” which are not defined and Walmart interprets
this Topic as it reasonably understands these terms. Walmart further objects
to this request as inconsistent with Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the
matters for examination. Walmart objects to this Topic as overly broad and
unduly burdensome because it lacks temporary scope Walmart further
objects to this Topic as overly broad to the extent it seeks information that is
neither relevant to any party’s claim or defense, nor proportional to the needs
of the case because it seeks discovery beyond the scope of plaintiffs’ claims
as plead in the Fourth Amended Complaint.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ECF No. 352-2, pg. 8.
26
27

Walmart refused to produce any witness to testify on this topic. See id.

28

///
9

1

With the narrowing of this topic to the beauty category for the time period January

2

1, 2009, to October 1, 2014, and the wet shave category for the time period January 1, 2007, to

3

October 1, 2014, the court finds this topic to be described with reasonable particularity.

4

Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and Walmart’s cross-motion will be denied as to Topic 6.

5
6

4.

Topic 7 – Walmart’s practices, processes, and procedures for sharing
price, cost, and supply information with product suppliers

7

Walmart objects as follows:

8

18

Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any
other applicable privilege or protection. Walmart objects to this Topic to the
extent it seeks confidential, trade secret, competitive, business, or other
proprietary information and reserves the right to designate any transcript(s)
of Walmart’s designee(s) confidential as permitted under the Protective
Order. Walmart objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, including in its use of the terms “practices,” “processes,”
“procedures,” “sharing,” “price,” “cost,” “supply information,” and “product
suppliers,” which are not defined and Walmart interprets this Topic as it
reasonably understands these terms. Walmart further objects to this request
as inconsistent with Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the matters for
examination. Walmart objects to this Topic as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it lacks temporary scope Walmart further objects to
this Topic as overly broad to the extent it seeks information that is neither
relevant to any party’s claim or defense, nor proportional to the needs of the
case because it seeks discovery beyond the scope of plaintiffs’ claims as
plead in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Walmart objects to this Topic
because it assumes the existence of facts no tin evidence. Walmart further
objections [sic] to this Topic on the grounds that it is unintelligible.

19

ECF No. 352-2, pg. 9.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

20
21

Walmart refused to produce any witness to testify on this topic. See id.
To the extent this topic seeks testimony concerning the mechanics (i.e., “practices,

22

processes, and procedures”) for sharing information with product suppliers, the Court finds the

23

topic to be described with reasonable particularity. To the extent the topic seeks information

24

beyond the mechanics of Walmart’s sharing of information with product suppliers, the court finds

25

the topic to be overbroad. Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and Walmart’s cross-motion will be

26

denied to the extent plaintiffs seek testimony concerning the mechanics of Walmart’s information

27

sharing. The granting of this motion is without prejudice to any objections by Walmart, at the

28

time of the subject deposition, to the extent plaintiffs seek testimony beyond the mechanics of
10

1

Walmart’s information-sharing process and procedure.

2

5.

3

Topic 29 – The documents and spreadsheets that Walmart produced
with its August 14, 2019, volume 10 production and its November 15,
2019, production

4

Walmart objects as follows:

5

Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any
other applicable privilege or protection. Walmart objects to this Topic on the
grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including in its use of the terms
“documents” and “spreadsheets,” which are not defined and Walmart
interprets this Topic as it reasonably understands these terms. Walmart
objects to this Topic as improper and outside the scope of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) testimony. Walmart objects to this Topic to the
extent it seeks information that is neither relevant to any party’s claim or
defense, nor proportional to the needs of the case because it seeks discovery
beyond the scope of plaintiffs’ claims as plead in the Fourth Amended
Complaint. Walmart objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information
that is duplicative of other discovery requests propounded by Plaintiffs in
this litigation.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

ECF No. 352-2, pg. 25.

13
14

Walmart refused to produce any witness to testify on this topic. See id.

15

As to this topic, Walmart’s objection will be overruled. Plaintiffs should be

16

permitted to ask Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness about documents Walmart produced. The

17

scope of the topic is specifically limited to documents produced by Walmart on August 14, 2019,

18

and November 15, 2019. Presumably, Walmart knows what these documents are and should have

19

its Rule 30(b)(6) witness prepared to discuss them. Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and

20

Walmart’s cross-motion will be denied as to Topic 29.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
11

1

III. CONCLUSION

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant AI to provide further responses to

requests for production, set two (ECF No. 324) is denied;
2.

Walmart’s motion to enforce the court’s prior order regarding depositions

and for a protective order (ECF No. 332) is resolved as follows:
a.
The motion is granted to the extent plaintiff will not be permitted to
take more than 18 depositions, as provided in the court’s January 17, 2020, order;
b.
The motion is denied to the extent plaintiffs seek to substitute Ms.
Helfrich and/or Ms. Foshee as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee listed in plaintiffs’ prior
motion;
3.

The parties cross-motions regarding plaintiffs’ notice of deposition of

Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness (ECF Nos. 334 and 336) are resolved as follows:
a.
Pursuant to plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations, the scope of
Walmart’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition as to Topics 4, 5, and 6 is limited to
the beauty category for the time period January 1, 2009, to October 1, 2014, and
the wet shave category for the time period January 1, 2007, to October 1, 2014;
b.
Subject to the limitations on scope outlined above, plaintiffs’
motion is granted and Walmart’s motion is denied as to Topics 4, 5, and 6;
c.
Plaintiffs’ motion is granted and Walmart’s cross-motion is denied
as to Topic 7 to the extent plaintiffs seek testimony concerning the mechanics of
Walmart’s information sharing;
d.
Plaintiffs’ motion is granted and Walmart’s cross-motion is denied
as to Topic 29.

21
22
23
24

Dated: February 5, 2020
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
12