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)
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?