Faison v. Walmart Inc. et al

Filing 42

STIPULATION and ORDER REGARDING COMMON FACT DISCOVERY signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 3/7/2025. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Cortlin H. Lannin (Bar No. 266488)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, California 94105-2533
Telephone: + 1 [phone]
Facsimile: + 1 [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Defendants Walmart Inc.
and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

8

(Additional counsel listed below)

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
Civil Case No.: 2:24-cv-01024-DJC (CSK)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

VERNITA FAISON, individually and as a
representative of all others similarly situated,

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING COMMON FACT
DISCOVERY

Plaintiff,

Judge: Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

v.

Magistrate: Hon. Chi Soo Kim

WALMART INC. and WAL-MART STORES,
INC.,
Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Vernita Faison and Defendants Walmart Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(“Walmart”) hereby submit this stipulation, subject to approval by the Court:
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2023, Plaintiff and two other individuals—Arnesia Thomas
and Pascha Perkins—filed a complaint against Walmart in the Northern District of Illinois
asserting that Walmart misrepresents the thread count of its 800-thread count “Hotel Style”
bed sheets. See Thomas v. Walmart Inc., N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:23-cv-05315 (ECF No. 1).

28

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING COMMON FACT DISCOVERY

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Faison’s claims were dismissed by the Thomas court for lack of

2

personal jurisdiction on March 11, 2024. See Thomas, ECF No. 37. Plaintiffs Thomas and

3

Perkins continue to prosecute their claims in the Thomas action.

4

WHEREAS, Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant action in this forum on April 5, 2024,

5

re-asserting the claims that had been dismissed by the Thomas court for lack of personal

6

jurisdiction. ECF No. 1.

7
8

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s allegations and the issues in this action substantially overlap with
those in Thomas v. Walmart Inc.

9

WHEREAS, fact discovery is currently open in both this action and the Thomas v.

10

Walmart Inc. matter, although the parties’ fact discovery activities have been proceeding under

11

the ambit of the Thomas matter.

12

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to substantively identical confidentiality orders and

13

ESI protocols in both this action and the Thomas v. Walmart Inc. matter. See Faison v.

14

Walmart Inc., ECF Nos. 39 & 40; Thomas v. Walmart Inc., ECF Nos. 46 & 47, Case No. 23-cv-

15

5315 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2024).

16

WHEREAS, the parties agree that it would serve the interests of judicial economy and

17

efficiency if certain categories of fact discovery produced in the Thomas case were also

18

deemed produced in this case, which would ensure the parties do not need to serve

19

duplicative discovery requests, re-produce documents, or conduct duplicative depositions.

20

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the following categories of fact discovery materials

21

from the Thomas case will be deemed served and/or produced in this case and available for

22

the parties to use as if they had originally been served and/or produced in this case:

23

1. All written discovery requests and responses;

24

2. All documents produced by either party;

25

3. All documents produced by a third-party in response to a subpoena or public records

26

request, as well as written responses by a third-party to a subpoena, provided the

27

third-party consents to making these materials available in this action as well as the

28

Thomas case;
2
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING COMMON FACT DISCOVERY

1

4. All depositions of a fact witness; and

2

5. All depositions of a corporate witness.

3

WHEREAS, the parties agree that any confidentiality designations of discovery material

4

produced in Thomas will be equally applicable in this matter.

5

WHEREAS, the parties agree to abide by any fact discovery-related decisions of the

6

Thomas court that are equally applicable in this matter, and to abide by any fact discovery-

7

related decisions of this Court that are equally applicable in the Thomas matter.

8
9

WHEREAS, the parties agree that any discovery material that is clawed back in the
Thomas case will also be deemed to have been clawed back in this case.

10

WHEREAS, the parties agree that this stipulation shall not prejudice or prevent either

11

party from seeking further fact discovery specific to this matter, including (but not limited to)

12

discovery of the Plaintiff in this case.

13

WHEREAS, the parties agree that they will enter into and file a similar stipulation in the

14

Thomas matter that will provide that the above outlined categories of fact discovery produced

15

in this matter are also deemed produced in the Thomas matter. Again, this will ensure that the

16

parties do not need to serve duplicative discovery requests, re-produce documents, or conduct

17

duplicative depositions in either matter.

18
19
20

WHEREAS, the parties agree that nothing in this stipulation abridges the right of any
person to seek its modification by the court in the future.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AND STIPULATED, subject to approval by the

21

Court, that the categories of fact discovery identified above from Thomas v. Walmart Inc.

22

should also be deemed served and produced in this action.

23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING COMMON FACT DISCOVERY

1

Dated: March 5, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

2

/s/ Cortlin H. Lannin

/s/ Frank A. Bartela

Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. (Bar No. 266488)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: + 1 [phone]
Facsimile: + 1 [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Frank A. Bartela, Esq. (OH Bar
#0088128)*
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. (OH Bar
#0079204)*
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, Ohio 44077
[phone] [phone] Fax
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Attorneys for Defendants Walmart Inc.
and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Andrea R. Gold, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

19

Annick M. Persinger, Esq. (CA Bar No.
272996)
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

20

Attorneys for Plaintiff

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING COMMON FACT DISCOVERY

1
2

ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of March, 2025.

3
4

/s/ Daniel J. Calabretta
THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING COMMON FACT DISCOVERY