National Federation of the Blind et al v. Target Corporation

Filing 60

DECLARATION of Robert Naeve in Oppositition to Motion for Administrative Relief filed byTarget Corporation. (Naeve, Robert) (Filed on 9/5/2006)

National Federation of the Blind et al v. Target Corporation

Doc. 60

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 60

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ROBERT A. NAEVE (CA SBN 106095) [e-mail] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 19900 MacArthur Blvd. Irvine, California 92612-2445 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] DAVID F. MCDOWELL (CA SBN 125806) SARVENAZ BAHAR (CA SBN 171556) [e-mail] [e-mail] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, California 90013-1024 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] STUART C. PLUNKETT (CA SBN 187971) [e-mail] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant TARGET CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of their members, and Bruce F. Sexton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant.

Case No.

C06-01802 MHP

DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. NAEVE IN SUPPORT OF TARG ET'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

NAEVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 60

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 2 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. NAEVE I, Robert A. Naeve, declare and state as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the state of California, and admitted to

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I am one of the attorneys representing Defendant Target Corporation ("Target") in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration. If called as a witness, I would and could competently testify as follows: 2. Before this action was filed, representatives of Target and plaintiff National

Federation of the Blind ("NFB") met in Baltimore, Maryland, to discuss alleged inaccessibility of the website located at www.target.com. 3. On or about May 26, 2006 I suggested to Lawrence Paradis, counsel for NFB that

parties should participate in a face-to-face meeting to discuss settlement of this action before Target's motion to dismiss and NFB's motion for preliminary injunction were to be heard. I followed up on this request in a June 2, 2006 email, which reads as follows:1

Target submits the text of this email solely to demonstrate its attempts at complying with General Order 56, and not for purposes of establishing or admitting liability.
NAEVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP

1

1

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 60

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 3 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4.

Despite this request, the parties have not conducted any type of face-to-face

meeting to discuss possible settlement of this action. 5. On or about August 17, 2006, I received a letter from counsel for NFB. The

letter asked Target to stipulate to "complete relief" from General Order 56. During an August 24, 2006 telephone conference in response to NFB's letter, I told Mr. Paradis that Target believed the parties' best interests were served by referring this matter to mediation pursuant to General Order 56. I acknowledged that, given the complexities inherent in a case of this type, it might be best to refer this matter to a private mediator who had more time to work with the parties to bring this matter to a full and final resolution. I asked Mr. Paradis if NFB had any acceptable mediators in mind. He suggested that former Magistrate Judge Edward Infante of JAMS might be an appropriate mediator. However, he said that NFB would consider referring this matter to Judge Infante only if Target stipulated to full relief from General Order 56. I confirmed the gist of this conversation in an August 25, 2006 letter attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "A." 6. I called Mr. Paradis again on August 30, 2006 to discuss compliance with

Gene4ral Order 56. I confirmed that Target did not believe that the parties' best interests were served by conducting expensive and time-consuming dual track discovery and mediation. I also informed Mr. Paradis that Target was willing to refer this matter to mediation before Judge Infante; that Target had already communicated one good-faith settlement proposal to NFB; and that Target did not place any pre-conditions or limitations on the topics to be discussed during the mediation. I confirmed the gist of this conversation in an August 30, 2006 letter attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "B." 7. In response, Mr. Paradis said that, while NFB was not adverse to mediation, it

would not do so without first obtaining complete relief from General Order 56. 8. The parties have not referred this matter to the Northern District's ADR

Department pursuant to paragraph 6 of General Order 56. The parties have not scheduled a

NAEVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP

2

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 60

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 4 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

mediation date before Judge Infante or any other private mediator. The parties have not complied with paragraph 6 of General Order 56. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on June 12, 2006 in Los Angeles, California.

____________________________________ Robert A. Naeve

NAEVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP

3

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 60

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 5 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
NAEVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP

EXHIBIT "A"

4

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 60

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 6 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
NAEVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP

5

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 60

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 7 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
NAEVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP

6

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 60

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 8 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
NAEVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP

EXHIBIT "B"

7

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 60

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 9 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
NAEVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP

8

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 60

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 10 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
NAEVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP

9