Legault v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
MATTHEW LEGAULT 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CASE NO. 4:24-CV-00728-BSM
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
Matthew Legault’s motion to compel [Doc. No. 35] is denied for the following
reasons.
A. 	Reviewing Files In Native Format
Legault’s motion to compel Costco to provide him with native files and metadata is
denied because Costco states the files are security sensitive configuration files. While
Legault argues that this is insufficient, Costco has offered to make the files available to
Legault. Costco Response, Doc. No. 36, Exs. C at 1 and D at 1. Additionally, the parties
were unable to come to an agreement on a protective order, therefore, Legault’s argument
about recourse of confidentiality concerns being through a protective order is denied. See
Doc. Nos. 15, 22–23, 27, 31, and 34.
B. 	Discovery Requests
Legault’s motion to compel Costco to identify sources and clarify discrepancies is
denied because Legault does not point to a specific discovery request that Costco did not
answer. In his reply, Legault states that the identities of individuals are responsive to his
interrogatory two, however, Legault does not provide the interrogatory. 	Reply at 2, Doc.
Case 4:24-cv-00728-BSM Document 38 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 3

No. 37; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(3)(B)(i–iii).
C. 	Embassy Suites Interviews
Legault’s motion to compel Costco to produce all documents, notes, emails, and
memoranda relating to the Embassy Suites interviews conducted by Costco’s lawyers while
investigating Legault’s claims is denied because they are protected by the work-product
doctrine and attorney-client privilege. In re Green Grand Jury Proceedings, 492 F.3d 976,
982 (lawyer’s notes and memoranda from a witness interview are “opinion work product”
entitled to almost absolute protection from discovery); Gillespie v. Charter Comm., 133 F.
Supp. 3d 1195, 1200 (E.D. Mo. 2015) (attorney-client privilege protects confidential
communications between lawyers and their clients). Legault’s argument that Costco waived
its privilege rights by not listing the notes and memoranda on its privilege log is denied
because Costco asserts that it has done so. See Costco Response at 5.
Second, Legault joins in Veronica Marking’s motion to compel argument that Costco
should supplement its privilege log to include any withheld materials which was denied. See
Marking v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 4:2024-cv-00610, Doc. Nos. 31 and 34.
D. 	Unredacted Social Security Numbers
Legult’s motion to compel Costco to provide him with redacted copies of documents
containing his social security number and other personal identifiers is denied, and his
argument that Costco violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 by producing to him
unredacted copies containing his social security number and other personal identifying
information is rejected. Rule 5.2 applies only to documents that are filed in court—not to
2
Case 4:24-cv-00728-BSM Document 38 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 3

responses during discovery—and Costo exercised adequate care with Legault’s personal
information by producing it on “an encrypted, password-protected zip file delivered using
a secure document-sharing website.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a); Costco Response at 5, Doc.
No. 36.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2025.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Case 4:24-cv-00728-BSM Document 38 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 3