White v. City of Oakland

Filing 57

ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY DISPUTE 52 ; VACATING HEARING; AND EXTENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINE to 2/24/2014. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 2/3/14. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12 DONNA WHITE,
13
14

Case No. 11-cv-03846 NC
Plaintiff,

v.

15 CITY OF OAKLAND,
16

ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE; VACATING HEARING;
AND EXTENDING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT DEADLINE
Re: Dkt. No. 52

Defendant.

17
18

The procedural posture of this ADA access case is that the parties report that the case

19 has partially settled, fact discovery ended January 17, the filing deadline for summary
20 judgment has been extended to February 10, and trial is scheduled for May 12. One week
21 after the close of fact discovery, the parties filed a joint statement of discovery dispute in
22 which White requested that the Court compel Oakland to produce additional documents
23 and to produce witnesses, including Mayor Jean Quan, for depositions. The Court
24 requested additional information and proposed orders, which the parties provided. The
25 Court has reviewed the materials submitted by both parties and does not need a hearing to
26 decide the remaining issues in dispute. Accordingly, the Court vacates the February 5
27 hearing and orders as follows:
28
Case No. 11-cv-03846 NC
DISCOVERY ORDER

1
2

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY WHITE
1. Documentation of the City’s analysis in 1986 regarding exceptions to its access

3

obligations.

4

ORDER: Denied, as Oakland declares it possesses no responsive documents.

5

2. Documents regarding whether the City sought Recovery Act funds for the

6

Woodminster Amphitheatre, or for other facilities.

7

ORDER: Denied, as Oakland declares it possesses no responsive documents.

8

As to the request for documents “for other facilities,” the request is denied due

9

to lack of relevance.

10

3. Departmental transition plan survey(s) and self-evaluation relating to

11

Woodminster Amphitheatre.

12

ORDER: Denied, as Oakland declares it has produced responsive documents.

13
14
15

4. Cost estimate for the transition plan.
ORDER: Denied, as Oakland declares it possesses no responsive documents.
5. Documents showing that Woodminster was de-prioritized because of the need

16

to fund court-ordered changes resulting from lawsuits.

17

ORDER: Denied, as Oakland declares it possesses no responsive documents.

18

6. Final version of the ADA program division Capital Improvement Project

19

history, fiscal years 1997 to 2011, authored by Christine Calabrese.

20

ORDER: Granted. Oakland to produce all responsive documents by February

21

5, 2014.

22

7. Operating agreement between City and Producers Associates since 2008

23

including appendices.

24

ORDER: Denied, as Oakland declares it possesses no responsive documents.

25

8. Documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents

26

number 4: “any and all DOCUMENTS in YOUR POSSESSION identifying

27

any and all employees and/or aides to Mayor Jean Quan who were at the subject

28

property on October 9, 2011.”
Case No. 11-cv-03846 NC
DISCOVERY ORDER

2

1

OR
RDER: Granted. Oakland to prod
duce all resp
ponsive doc
cuments by February
y

2

5, 2014.

3

9. Ph
hotographs and/or draw
a
wings of the seating at W
e
Woodminster Amphith
heatre

4

sho
owing the seating befo 1975, af the 1975 alteration after the 1986
s
ore
fter
ns,

5

iff’s visits 2
alterations, an at the tim of plainti
nd
me
2010-2011, as identifie in
,
ed

6

pla
aintiff’s Req
quest for Pr
roduction o f Documen number 12.
nts

7

OR
RDER: Den
nied, as Oak
kland declar it possesses no resp
res
ponsive doc
cuments

8

bey
yond docum
ments previously produ
uced.

EPOSITIONS REQU
UESTED BY WHITE
Y
9 DE

10

White asks the Cou to compel five depo
a
urt
ositions of O
Oakland wi
itnesses and two
d

positions of persons most knowledgeable un der Federal Rule of Ci Procedu
f
m
l
ivil
ure
11 dep
(b)(6). As to the deposition of Ha
t
atzune Agu
uilar-Sanche describe as an aide to Mayor
ez,
ed
e
12 30(
uan
owledge of the Mayor’s informat
f
tion table at Woodmins on Octo
t
ster
ober 9,
13 Qu with kno
uest
ANTED. Th depositio is limited to four ho and mu be
he
on
d
ours
ust
14 2011, the requ is GRA
mpleted by February 10, 2014.
15 com

16

White’s request to compel add
s
ditional dep
positions is DENIED f lack of g
for
good cause.

hite
led
ese
ions are nec
cessary and not duplica
d
ative of
17 Wh has fail to establish that the depositi
her
ry
se.
ver,
unsel has no establishe diligence in
ot
ed
e
18 oth discover in the cas Moreov her cou
heduling the deposition during th period pe
e
ns
he
ermitted for discovery.
r
.
19 sch
UMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DEAD
DLINE EXT
TENDED
20 SU

21

Given White’s need to review the additio docum
W
w
onal
mentary evid
dence to be produced

pare
d
r-Sanchez d
deposition, the Court
22 by February 5 and to prep for and complete the Aguilar
tends the de
eadline for filing dispo
f
ositive motio to Febr
ons
ruary 24, 20
014. All oth case
her
23 ext
adlines rem in place
main
e.
24 dea

25

IT IS SO ORDER
RED.

26

Date: February 3, 2014

27

____
__________
_________
_
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

28
Ca No. 11-c
ase
cv-03846 NC
C
DI
ISCOVERY ORDER
Y

3