Thomas et al v. Wal-Mart Louisiana L L C et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM RULING re 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Virginia Thomas, Nathaniel Thomas. Signed by Magistrate Judge James D Kirk on 03/14/13. (crt,Burge, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
NATHANIEL THOMAS, et al

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-0087

-vs-

JUDGE DRELL

WAL-MART LOUISIANA, LLC, et al.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KIRK

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, Doc. # 31, referred to me by the
district judge for decision. A hearing on the motion was held before me on March 12, 2013
and rulings were made in open court. The following is a summary of those rulings.
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES:
Interrogatory 1 GRANTED
Interrogatory 4 GRANTED in part. List generically the contents of the CMI file.
Interrogatory 5 GRANTED in part. Provide names of persons interviewed.
Interrogatory 8 MOOT. Plaintiff is satisfied with the clarification provided in court.
Interrogatory 9 GRANTED in part. Amend the response to reflect the answer
provided in court and list the employees who were actually in the area at the
time.
Interrogatory 12 GRANTED. Defendant shall contact Wal-Mart headquarters to
determine whether the same display exists at another store and provide the
dimensions of that display. Otherwise, provide the dimensions of a similar

cardboard display, the wooden pallet and the dimensions of the corners of the
pallet which remain exposed.
Interrogatory 13 GRANTED.

Defendant shall identify the sections of the

documents/information produced which pertain to pallet bins. Additionally,
plaintiff’s counsel should make arrangements to visit the store in order to
view the electronic version of the training manual. If defendant cannot
accommodate any request to use a part of the electronic training manual at
trial, I should be contacted.
Interrogatory 15 MOOT. Defendant states there is no surveillance.
SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES:
Interrogatory 1 GRANTED. With respect to interrogatory 1a-1d, defendant states
the only items responsive to the request is the “Safety Binder”. Defendant is
to determine whether corporate headquarters has a copy of the relevant
binder. Further, any notes or information in the 2010 binder dealing with
pallets bins, produce bins, end caps, stack bases and the like shall be
produced.
With respect to the interrogatory 1e, plaintiff’s counsel should make
arrangements to visit the store in order to view the electronic version of the
training manual. If defendant cannot accommodate any request to use a part
of the electronic training manual at trial, I should be contacted.

2

Interrogatory 2 GRANTED.

Defendant states the only items responsive to the

request is the “Safety Binder”. Defendant is to determine whether corporate
headquarters has a copy of the relevant binder. Further, any notes or
information in the 2010 binder dealing with pallets bins, produce bins, end
caps, stack bases and the like shall be produced.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers, in Alexandria, Louisiana, on this the 14th
day of March, 2013.

3