Lewis v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. et al
Filing
47
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen re 44 Joint Discovery Letter of November 26, 2013 (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
AARON LEWIS,
9
Plaintiff,
v.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C-12-6354 EMC
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al.,
12
ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER OF NOVEMBER 26, 2013
Defendants.
___________________________________/
(Docket No. 44)
13
14
15
16
17
Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter of November 26,
2013. Having considered the contents of that letter, the Court hereby rules as follows.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that an in-person meet and confer at the courthouse would be
18
beneficial as both parties seem to be taking unreasonable positions. For example, in Category 1
19
(“The essential functions of Mr. Lewis’ position and how they were determined to be essential”),
20
Defendant states that it is “troubled” by the second portion of the category. Defendant suggests that
21
the second portion is compound, asks for a legal conclusion, and is irrelevant. The first two
22
objections are clearly without merit. As for the third objection, it too is without basis. While
23
Defendant might deem certain functions of the position “essential,” Plaintiff is entitled to test the
24
characterization of a given function as essential, and, in this respect, it is reasonable for Plaintiff to
25
understand how and why Defendant deemed a function essential.
26
As another example, in Category 5, (“Defendant’s previous accommodation of store
27
employees with disabilities or restrictions that limit their ability to work on their feet, including
28
those who use a wheelchair or motorized cart”), the Court assumes that Plaintiff wants to determine
1
whether Defendant can actually make accommodations for him, and, if Defendant has made
2
accommodations for other persons with disabilities, that would demonstrate that Defendant is
3
capable of doing the same for him. However, Defendant fairly points out that, for any legitimate
4
comparison, the employees would need to have disabilities similar to Plaintiff’s (in all material
5
respects) and would have to work in a position with similar essential functions as Plaintiff’s. On the
6
other hand, Defendants’ claim that having a deponent prepared to testify on the topic would be
7
unduly burdensome (i.e., because of a lack of a central database) is dubious, that is, assuming that
8
time and geographic limitations can be worked out.
9
Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to attend a meet and confer at the courthouse on
January 6, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel with full and complete authority on discovery matters
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
shall appear and shall report to Courtroom 5 on the 17th floor. The parties should be prepared to
12
meet and confer all day, if necessary, with respect to all of the categories in the deposition notice.
13
The Court expects that the parties should be able to resolve all disputes without the need for judicial
14
intervention and forewarns the parties that any party which takes a position not substantially
15
justified risks being sanctioned.
16
This order disposes of Docket No. 44.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated: December 17, 2013
21
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?