Order ORDER MEMORIALIZING OCTOBER 8, 2026, CONFERENCE CALL — 2025SOX00047

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
COVINGTON DISTRICT OFFICE
Issue Date: 15 October 2026
In the Matter of:
JOSEPH REYNA,
Complainant,
v.
WALMART, INC.,
Respondent,
CASE NO.: 2025-SOX-00047
ANGELA F. DONALDSON
Administrative Law Judge
ORDER MEMORIALIZING OCTOBER 8, 2026, CONFERENCE CALL
On October 8, 2026, the undersigned held a conference call with the parties regarding the
status of pending discovery matters. The undersigned noted the following recent procedural
history and submissions:
09/17/26 Order Denying Complainant’s Motion to Modify Deposition
09/18/26 Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration
09/24/26 Order Granting Motion for Limited Extension of Discovery
09/25/26 Complainant’s Motion to Compel (responses to Interrogatories nos. 9, 10,
Requests to Produce nos. 8, 9)
09/25/26 Complainant’s Motion for Leave to exceed discovery limits in order to
serve Request to Produce (RPD) no. 15
10/01/26 Respondent’s letter summarizing history of discovery exchanges
10/03/26 Complainant’s Motion to depose 4 individuals (Jones, Davison,
Hammons, Hoover) (and 10/06/26 supplement to the motion)
10/07/26 Complainant’s Amended Verified Response to Interrogatory 3
10/07/26 Complainant’s response to October 1 letter by Respondent
10/07/26 Complainant’s Correction to a previous response he filed 04/14/26
(responding to Respondent’s Answer to the Complaint)
The undersigned noted the marked increase in Complainant’s submissions in a short
period of time, which resulted in her instructions to the parties that no further submissions would
be accepted for filing until further notice. My Attorney Advisor sent this instruction to the parties
via email at the close of business on October 7, 2026. I then advised the parties on the October 8
call that the moratorium on filings would be brief and likely lifted within two to three business
days after the conference call.

- 2 -
The undersigned reviewed the above submissions with the parties, seeking clarification
when needed regarding the assertions and whether there was opposition. Respondent confirmed
that it intends to file responses in opposition to the Motion to Compel, the Motion for Leave (to
serve RPD no. 15), and Motion to depose 4 individuals. For good cause shown, I EXTENDED
the deadlines for responses to October 16, 2026 (for the Motion to Compel, Motion for Leave)
and to October 23, 2026 (for the Motion to depose 4 individuals).
I advised Complainant that some of his submissions filed October 7, 2026, were not
appropriate to file with the tribunal because they concerned the filing of discovery or constituted
a reply to an Answer, which is not a pleading requested or permitted under the Pre-Hearing
Order (January 14, 2026) or the procedural rules.
The parties confirmed on the call that there remains a dispute over the deposition of
Complainant Reyna that Respondent initially noticed for September 25, 2026, and has now
rescheduled for October 30, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. PT/12:00 p.m. CT. Respondent again noticed the
deposition to occur by video conference. Complainant objects to the format and seeks to have the
deposition occur by phone with regular breaks. Complainant again raises issues of internet
connectivity and concerns over privacy if the deposition is held remotely. Complainant also
raises concerns over his deficits of attention or concentration, his responsibilities as a caregiver
for an ill parent, and his lack of transportation. He asks that Respondent provide copies of any
deposition exhibits in advance. Respondent does not agree to a deposition by phone but again
offers alternatively to take the deposition in person. Respondent’s counsel confirms he will offer
regular/hourly breaks and that there is no expectation that the deposition would exceed the 7-
hour limit for depositions under Rule 18.64(d)(1). Respondent also offers to move up the
deposition start time, if needed.
This disputed matter will be addressed shortly by a separate order ruling on
Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration.
In the meantime, the parties are hereby notified that they may again file relevant
and necessary filings (the stay of same is thus lifted). As stated toward the close of the
October 8 conference call, Complainant is cautioned to file only what is relevant and necessary.
Although good-faith conferences concerning a written motion are not required with pro se
litigants (Rule 18.33(c)(3)), the parties are nonetheless encouraged to discuss the potential
resolution of any future disputes prior to the filing of a motion and to permit enough time for a
meaningful discussion by phone.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELA F. DONALDSON
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE