Graham v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 22

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/29/16 GRANTING the use of previous depositions. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TYRA GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. Defendant. ) Case No. 2:14-cv-02916-MCE-CMK ) ) ) ) ) Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STIPULATION AND ORDER Come now the Parties, Plaintiff Tyra Graham and Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and move this Court to approve the following stipulation: 1) The purpose of this Stipulation is to avoid duplication in re-deposing witnesses in the instant matter, Graham vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter (“Graham”), who were already deposed in cases styled as Blankenship vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Case No. 2:14CV-26529 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Charleston Division and hereinafter “Blankenship”) and Locke vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Case No. 13-CV-033-FHS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma and hereinafter “Locke”). In an effort to avoid duplication, the Parties agree to treat the following video depositions and each accompanying transcript and exhibit as if those video depositions were taken in Graham: a. Jorge Garcia, deposed in Blankenship on May 29, 2015 b. Cara Rose, deposed in Blankenship on May 28, 2015, c. Cindy Hay deposed in Blankenship on May 28, 2015, d. Joe Bussell deposed in Blankenship on May 29, 2015 and August 13, 2015, e. Tracy Lieberman deposed in Blankenship on May 28, 2015 and August 13, 2015. f. Paul Craig deposed in Locke on March 5, 2014, g. Elizabeth Gamez deposed in Locke on March 5, 2014, and h. Linda McCall deposed in Locke on March 4, 2014. 2) The use of the Rule 30(b)(6) video deposition of Joe Bussell dated August 13, 2015 and the Rule 30(b)(6) video deposition of Tracy Lieberman dated August 13, 2015 in Blankenship will be in lieu of Plaintiff’s noticing new 30(b)(6) video depositions in Graham subject to paragraph 4 of this Stipulation. 3) Wal-Mart does not waive its objections to relevance and admissibility of any of the aforementioned video depositions, transcripts and exhibits in the instant Graham matter, including but not limited to objections pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence. 4) Paragraph 2 of this Stipulation is conditioned on Wal-Mart’s written response to Plaintiff’s request for “The number of individuals who have alleged safety interlock failure on the GE Food Processor to date, the nature of the complaint, the alleged injury, the date the injury occurred, the name and contact information of the individual, and the date that Wal-Mart received notice of the complaint.” Whether such response is “responsive” and thus negates the need for a 30(b)(6) deposition to occur on the aforementioned topic depends on mutual agreement of the Parties. Wal-Mart does not waive its right to assert appropriate objections in response to the aforementioned topic in conjunction with responding to same. 2 5) No portion of this stipulation is intended to waive or amend any term in the protective order to which the parties agreed in the instant Graham matter (Document 18, filed April 3, 2015). No portion of this stipulation is intended to waive or amend any term in the protective order to which Wal-Mart and plaintiff Andrea Locke stipulated in the Locke matter. No portion of this stipulation is intended to waive or amend any term in the protective order to which Wal-Mart and plaintiffs Tina and Mark Blankenship stipulated in the Blankenship matter. __/s/ Anna C. Gehriger (As authorized on 2/16/2016) Anna C. Gehriger, Esq. PSA Phillips Spallas & Angstadt, LLP 505 Sansome Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Counsel for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. _/s/ Michael E. Carr Michael E. Carr Carr & Carr Attorneys 4416 South Harvard Ave. Tulsa, OK 74135 Counsel for Plaintiff Tyra Graham ORDER The Parties having so stipulated and agreed, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 29, 2016 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?