Judge hears discovery fight in Clayton County shooting case; will issue written order

Judge Tammy Long Hayward presided over a discovery hearing in Clayton County State Court's Courtroom 304 in the consolidated civil case 2024-CV-03259 involving plaintiffs Eden Teketsky and Asperon Teketsky (individually and as parents of a minor) and defendants Walmart Stores East LP, 125 Fayetteville LLC, Master Security Company LLC and Adrian Lamar Jelks.

The hearing centered on plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery from Walmart and related disputes over privilege logs, the scope and timing of document searches, personnel files and whether plaintiffs may serve additional interrogatories. Pro se defendant Adrian Lamar Jelks also presented three motions he filed: a motion to dismiss, a motion for default judgment and a motion to strike the plaintiffs' response. Judge Hayward said she would consider the motions and issue a written order.

Why it matters: the underlying case arises from a March 29, 2024, shooting in the Fayetteville Walmart store that killed former employee Antavious Holton and seriously injured 9‑year‑old Eliana Berhe. Plaintiffs allege negligent security and related claims against Walmart and vicarious liability tied to employee conduct; discovery now in dispute concerns whether Walmart has produced all relevant internal incident reports, text messages, personnel records and related communications that plaintiffs say show notice, foreseeability and failures in hiring, training or supervision.

Plaintiffs' presentation Plaintiffs' counsel Jeff Butler and Tom Gianotti summarized the facts and argued that Walmart's discovery responses have been incomplete, delayed and accompanied by boilerplate objections. Gianotti told the court that Walmart's initial discovery responses were late, a privilege log was provided only after months of delay, and that Walmart has used broad objections (attorney‑client, work product, trade secret, confidentiality) without specifying what, if anything, is being withheld. Gianotti said plaintiffs' requests seek documents relevant to notice and foreseeability, including internal reports about prior incidents at the Fayetteville store and the market, monthly security‑tour checklists the plaintiffs say Walmart's policy requires, internal “post orders” for its third‑party security contractor (Master Security), and text messages and emails discussing employee disputes involving Adrian Jelks.

Gianotti described a text exchange that plaintiffs contend shows a supervisor (identified in the transcript as Mario Carradine) telling Jelks he would not let him lose his job, and he argued that the personnel file for Jelks and other employees lacks expected documentation of discipline. He said plaintiffs had limited some requests in time and scope (proposing, for some items, a three‑year period in Georgia or otherwise store‑ or market‑limited), but that Walmart still has not produced monthly security tour documents, internal incident reports for the Fayetteville store or a clear statement that no other responsive documents exist.

Pro se defendant's filings Adrian Lamar Jelks appeared pro se and told the court his defense is that Walmart “is at fault” because, he said, he alerted Walmart to problems and the company took no action. Judge Hayward advised Jelks (on the record) that anything he says can be used in this and other prosecutions and allowed plaintiffs' counsel (Jeff Butler) to respond to Jelks' motions. Butler argued the complaint provides fair notice and that Jelks' affidavit converted his motion to dismiss into something resembling a summary‑judgment filing, which plaintiffs say is premature while discovery remains incomplete. Butler asked the court to deny Jelks' motions to dismiss, to strike and for default judgment.

Walmart's position Logan Owens, counsel for Walmart, told the court Walmart has produced substantial discovery (including video footage and personnel information), has supplemented responses repeatedly and has provided a privilege log. Owens said the company has acted “diligently and in good faith,” that certain materials are sensitive and were produced under a protective order, and that some responsive items (for example, text messages on personal phones) may not be fully within Walmart's possession. Owens urged the court and plaintiffs to narrow certain requests and to negotiate an ESI protocol to make searches more efficient, arguing that some requests as drafted would require manual review of very large numbers of records.

Areas of dispute highlighted to the court - Completeness/finality: plaintiffs say Walmart's privilege log and document production do not show whether searches are complete; plaintiffs reported receiving a privilege log only after months and noted production of only two emails so far; Walmart says it has supplemented multiple times and produced a large volume of video and personnel records under a protective order. - Scope and geography: plaintiffs sought some prior incident reports statewide in Georgia (three‑year lookback); Walmart urged limiting discovery to the Fayetteville store or a narrower market to avoid unduly broad, burdensome searches across the entire company. - Personnel records and Romero: plaintiffs singled out employee Sandra Romero (identified in the transcript as present with Jelks at the store entrance on the date of the shooting) and sought her personnel records; plaintiffs said Romero had prior arrests and a complicated employment timeline and that Walmart's production leaves open whether Romero remains employed and whether relevant disciplinary documents exist. - Witness statements and work product: plaintiffs sought witness statements taken in the ordinary course of business; Walmart asserted work‑product or privilege protection for some statements collected after counsel became involved. - Numerosity of interrogatories: plaintiffs asked leave to serve additional interrogatories; Walmart opposed on the ground that plaintiffs already served a large number and did not meet the showing for extra interrogatories.

Court action and next steps Judge Hayward declined to rule from the bench on the contested discovery items at the hearing. She said she would review the briefing and the presentations and issue a written order addressing the specific requests and objections and attempting to set deadlines so depositions and the next stages of litigation can proceed. The judge emphasized the need for practical, narrowly tailored requests and signaled she would expect both sides to propose clear, workable search parameters where possible.

Quotes (selected and attributed) “I am Judge Tammy Long Hayward. That's Tammy with an I,” Judge Hayward said when opening the hearing. “We have been left to wonder if the response is complete,” plaintiffs' counsel Tom Gianotti told the court, summarizing plaintiffs' concerns about blanket objections and delayed privilege logs. “We have produced a massive amount of video, documents, personnel files,” Walmart counsel Logan Owens told the court, saying the company had supplemented repeatedly.

Ending Judge Hayward said she will issue written rulings resolving specific discovery disputes and “get you something on each of the requests” with deadlines so depositions and further litigation can move forward. The order will be mailed to the parties and the court will expect continued supplementation and cooperation under the court's schedule.