Fisher v. Walmart, 1:23-cv-00028

Plaintiff Daniel B. Fisher alleges he was injured after slipping at a Walmart in Los Lunas, New Mexico on September 18, 2021.
Fisher initially filed suit in New Mexico state court; Walmart removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Fisher, proceeding pro se, moved to compel discovery from Walmart, including a video of the incident, witness information, and insurance documents.
Walmart responded, arguing it had already produced the requested materials and that Fisher had not properly conferred or followed procedural requirements before filing the motion.
The court considered Fisher's pro se status but held him to rules regarding discovery motions and local procedures.
Plaintiff did not file a reply to Walmart’s response, and critical procedural rules relating to conferral and documentation were not met.

Issue	Fisher's Argument	Walmart's Argument	Held
Failure to produce video of the incident	Walmart did not provide the surveillance video	Video produced multiple times pre- and post-motion	Motion denied; video produced
Failure to produce witness names, info	Walmart did not provide names/contact info	No formal requests served, info construed & provided	Motion denied; info provided
Failure to produce insurance policy	Walmart did not provide applicable insurance policy	Insurance declaration included in initial disclosures	Motion denied; document provided
Failure to confer before filing motion	Not addressed beyond statement of prior court order	Plaintiff made no good faith conferral effort	Motion denied; violated rules

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (standard for liberal construction of pro se pleadings, but limits court's role to avoid becoming advocate)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (cannot require court to act as attorney for pro se litigant in discovery disputes)
Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, 541 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 2008) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings reiterated)