Harris v. National Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY DISPUTE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/1/2015. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NONA HARRIS,
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

v.

13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00294-LJO-SAB

NATIONAL STORES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

On May 29, 2015, the Court held an informal discovery dispute conference in this action.

18 Tanya Moore appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Nona Harris (“Plaintiff”).

Daron Barsamian

19 appeared on behalf of Defendants National Stores, Inc. and Force-Fulton Mall, LLC.
20 (“Defendants”).
21

The parties disputed the scope of a site inspection proposed by Plaintiff of Defendants’

22 business premises. Plaintiff contended that a full inspection of the premises was warranted to
23 discover whether any other, unknown barriers relating to Plaintiff’s disability existed beyond
24 those explicitly identified in Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants contended that the site inspection
25 should be limited in scope to those areas of the premises specifically identified in Plaintiff’s
26 complaint as constituting a barrier.
27 / / /
28 / / /

1

In Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit stated:

1
2

Given that an ADA plaintiff has standing because of deterrence
from returning in the face of uncertainty, it is prudent to eliminate
that uncertainty through the judicial device of discovery, thus
allowing the plaintiff to obtain by formal means the information
about the scope of the defendant's violations that he may have been
unable to safely ascertain himself because of those same violations.

3
4
5

6 The Ninth Circuit went on to state:
7

The statute provides that where an individual, like Doran, has
suffered discrimination in the form of a refusal to remove
architectural barriers, he may seek injunctive relief including “an
order to alter facilities to make such facilities readily accessible ...
and usable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2). Such injunctive relief could
not be crafted, however, if the parties had not been allowed to
determine through discovery precisely what barriers prevented the
facility in question from being “readily accessible to and usable
by” Doran. We therefore hold that where a disabled person has
Article III standing to bring a claim for injunctive relief under the
ADA because of at least one alleged statutory violation of which
he or she has knowledge and which deters access to, or full use and
enjoyment of, a place of public accommodation, he or she may
conduct discovery to determine what, if any, other barriers
affecting his or her disability existed at the time he or she brought
the claim.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Id. at 1043-44.

In accordance with Doran, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to conduct a full

17

18 inspection of the site and investigate what, if any, other barriers affecting her disability existed at
19 the time she brought the claim.
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated:

June 1, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2