## Facts

- John Archie Cain sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. after a 50-pound bag of dog food fell on him from an approximately eight-foot-high stack at a Wal-Mart store in Hope Mills, North Carolina, allegedly causing injury.
- Cain served written discovery seeking information about the incident, Wal-Mart’s investigation of it, Wal-Mart policies and procedures about merchandise stacking and store safety, and information about other similar stacking incidents or claims.
- Cain’s requests included, among other things: (i) the names of employees working at the store at the time of the incident, (ii) photographs or videos of the dog-food stacks over an extended period, (iii) broad categories of stacking policies and procedures, and (iv) records of other stacking-related incidents or claims.
- Wal-Mart objected to several requests as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, and it provided only partial responses and production.
- Cain filed motions to compel further answers and production and also sought relief relating to Wal-Mart’s Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures and scheduling deadlines.

## Issues

1. Whether Wal-Mart had to provide additional discovery about the incident and Wal-Mart’s investigation, including identifying store employees and producing incident-related materials, where Wal-Mart objected on breadth and burden grounds.
2. Whether Cain could compel production of expansive categories of materials—such as extended-timeframe images/videos, broad policy collections, and other-incident information—or whether those requests had to be limited under Rule 26(b)(1)’s relevance and proportionality requirements.
3. Whether Wal-Mart’s Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures were sufficient and, if not, what supplementation and schedule adjustments were appropriate.

## Decision

- The court denied as moot a duplicative motion to compel while considering the supporting memorandum in deciding the remaining discovery disputes.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Cain’s motion to compel, ordering Wal-Mart to supplement certain responses and produce additional incident-focused information, while refusing to compel discovery that was drafted too broadly or imposed a burden out of line with the likely benefit.
- The court required narrowing of categories such as requests for extended-timeframe photographs/videos, sweeping policy and procedure requests, and broad “other incidents/claims” demands, limiting any compelled production to information reasonably tied to the incident and the claims and defenses.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Cain’s request concerning initial disclosures, directing Wal-Mart to provide or supplement Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures to the extent they were incomplete and adjusting deadlines as needed to complete discovery.

## Legal Principles

- Parties may obtain discovery of nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ access to information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1))
- A court may compel discovery when responses are incomplete or evasive, but it may also limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or whose burden outweighs its likely benefit. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), 37(a))
- Discovery aimed at policies, procedures, and similar-incident information may be allowed when connected to the theories of liability and defenses, but it must be reasonably limited in subject matter and scope so it remains proportional. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1))
- Initial disclosures must be made without awaiting a discovery request and must identify individuals likely to have discoverable information, along with documents and other items a party may use to support its claims or defenses; courts may order supplementation and modify deadlines to address deficiencies. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), 26(e))

## Conclusion

Cain v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a discovery order in which the court compelled Wal-Mart to provide additional, incident-centered discovery and to supplement disclosures, but declined to require responses to broad, burdensome requests that exceeded what Rule 26(b)(1) allows, instead limiting discovery to a scope that fit the claims, defenses, and practical needs of the case.


Cain v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2018 WL 1434819 (2018)