Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Rafael Martinez v. Wal-Mart Inc

District Court, E.D. Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:24-cv-03036

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

1

FILED IN THE

2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
3 Feb 17, 2026

4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

9 RAFAEL MARTINEZ, an individual,

10 Plaintiff, No. 1:24-CV-03036-SAB

11 v.

12 WAL-MART INC, a foreign profit ORDER GRANTING AND

13 corporation, DENYING MOTIONS TO

14 Defendant. COMPEL; GRANTING

15 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

16 ORDER

17

18 Before the Court are Defendant’s Motions to Compel, ECF Nos. 62 and 64,
19 and Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 67. Plaintiff is represented
20 by Erika Valencia. Defendant is represented by Clarence M. Belnavis, Janelle W.
21 Debes, and Stephen Scott. The Motions were considered without oral argument.
22 Regarding the first Motion to Compel, ECF No. 62, Defendant requests the
23 Court compel Plaintiff to produce documents responsive to Defendant’s First
24 Request for Production (RFP) (Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 17, 18, and 19). In its second
25 Motion to Compel, ECF No. 64, Defendant further requests the Court compel
26 Plaintiff to produce documents that may have been withheld due to privilege or for
27 any other purpose. In the alternative, Defendant requests the Court command
28 Plaintiff to produce sufficient evidence that (1) Plaintiff drafted a response to
1 Defendant’s RFP before April 28, 2025, (2) Plaintiff mailed a copy of the response
2 to Defendant’s RFP on or before April 28, 2025, and (3) Plaintiff mailed a copy of
3 the response to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories (ROG) on or before April
4 28, 2025. Lastly, Defendant requests the Court enter a Protective Order striking or
5 removing the majority of categories from Plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)
6 Deposition Notice or require Plaintiff to describe with reasonable particularity the
7 categories and reissue a narrowed amended notice.

8 Motion to Compel Standard

9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34 govern the production of documents. Under Rule
10 34, a party may serve on any other party a request to produce any relevant and
11 nonprivileged materials in a party’s possession, custody, or control that contain
12 information within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and 34. Pursuant
13 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A), a party must respond in writing to a discovery
14 request within 30 days after being served. If a party fails to provide responsive
15 documents, a party may move for an order compelling discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P.
16 37(a)(3)(A), (a)(3)(B).

17 Protective Order Standard

18 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), a party may move for a protective order to
19 protect “a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
20 burden or expense, including… (A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery; (B)
21 specifying terms… for the disclosure or discovery; (C) prescribing a discovery
22 method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery; or
23 forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or
24 discovery to certain matters.” The Court may issue such an order upon a showing
25 by the party seeking the protective order that specific harm or prejudice will result
26 in the absence of such an order. In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in 27 Or., 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011).

28 //

1 Analysis
Upon review of the specific discovery requests pertinent to Defendant’s
3|| Motion to Compel, ECF No. 62, the Court finds the requests to be relevant and
proportionate to the needs of the case, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to such
5|| requests. As such, the first Motion to Compel, ECF No. 62, is granted.
Regarding the second Motion to Compel, ECF No. 64, the Court denies the
Motion as moot, due to the granting of the first Motion to Compel.
8 Regarding Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 67, the Court
finds good cause to grant the motion as Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of
Corporate Representative is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and beyond the scope
Red. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
13 1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 62, is GRANTED.
14 2. Plaintiff shall serve documents responsive to Defendant’s First
15|| Request for Production, Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 17, 18, and 19, within twenty (20) days
of the entry of this Order.
17 3. Defendant’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 64, is DENIED as moot.
18 4. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 67, is
19| GRANTED.
20 5. Plaintiff shall file an amended Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Corporate
Representative within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order, which limits and
22| describes with reasonable particularity the categories within the Notice.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to
24| file this Order and provide copies to counsel.
25 DATED this 17th day of February 2026.
© 2-24
28 Stan Bastian
Chief United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL;
ARTTIALO TIATIAN TAD DnaTTNTnwHrAnDNRTD +5