Gray v. Elliott Family Construction, LLC

Filing 27

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL CONFERENCE on Discovery Dispute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/2/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

ARTHUR GRAY,

) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00156 JLT
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER AFTER INFORMAL CONFERENCE ON
) DISCOVERY DISPUTE
v.
)
ELLIOTT FAMILY CONSTRUCTION LLC, )
)
Defendant.
)

16
At the request of the plaintiff, the Court held an informal conference re: discovery dispute on

17
18

September 2, 2016. At the conference, the parties agreed:
1.

19

The deposition of the defendant-entity will occur on September 16, 2016 at 10 a.m. at

20

a location in Solvang, California. No later than close of business on September 6, 2016, the

21

plaintiff’s attorney SHALL confirm in writing via e-mail or fax, the specific location in Solvang

22

where the deposition will occur. However, other than this, no further deposition notice need be

23

served;

24

2.

No later than close of business on September 6, 2016, the defendant’s attorney

25

SHALL confirm to plaintiff’s counsel in writing via e-mail or fax, whether the defendant will

26

withdraw affirmative defenses 12 and 13. If it chooses to withdraw the defenses, the defendant will

27

not be required to produce a deponent or documents related to the financial resources of the company

28

to take corrective action related to alleged barriers. If it does not withdraw the defenses, the objections
1

1

are OVERRULED and the defendant SHALL produce a deponent and documents related to this

2

category set forth in the previous deposition notice1;
3.

3

As to the PMK category and document request related to the physical layout of the site,

4

the Court agrees that the phrase “with an eye to wheelchair access” or the like set forth in the

5

deposition notice is vague and ambiguous. The defendant’s objection to this phrase is SUSTAINED

6

but it SHALL produce a deponent and documents responding to this category with this phrase

7

excised;
4.

8
9
10

As to the PMK category (#5) and any document request related to the contacts with the

plaintiff in July 2014, the parties agreed the defendant will produce a deponent and documents related
to contacts with the plaintiff related to accessibility issues only;
5.

11

As to the PMK category (#8) and any document request related to an “ADA trained

12

professional,” the Court agrees that this seeks to discover expert witness information before the

13

defendant is obligated to produce this information. (See Doc. 24) Thus, the objection is SUSTAINED.

14

The defendant need not produce a deponent or documents related to this category;
6.

15

As to the PMK category #9, the Court agrees that this category is vague and ambiguous

16

and the objection is SUSTAINED. The defendant need not produce a deponent or documents related

17

to this category.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

September 2, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court was not provided the deposition notice so its descriptions here are vaguely worded to address the topics
discussed at the informal conference.

2