Moore v. City of Berkeley et al

Filing 118

ORDER setting briefing schedule. Plaintiff to file opposition brief by November 18, 2017. Defendant to file reply brief within 7 days of receiving opposition brief. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ARTHUR MOORE, Plaintiff, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE v. CITY OF BERKELEY, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Case No. 14-cv-00669-CRB In this survivorship action brought on behalf of Kayla Moore (“Moore”), plaintiff Arthur 14 Moore (“plaintiff”) claims that City of Berkeley police officers violated the rights of his deceased 15 daughter under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) during their encounter with her in 16 the early-morning hours of February 13, 2013—an encounter that ended in Moore’s death. The 17 Court previously denied the City’s summary judgment motion with respect to Moore’s ADA 18 claims. See SJ Order (dkt. 71) at 11–13. In its pre-trial briefing, the City requests the Court to 19 require plaintiff to clarify those claims so that it may adequately defend against them. Def.’s Trial 20 Br. (dkt. 104) at 4. 21 Plaintiff plans to proceed to trial on two theories: (1) that Berkeley officers arrested Moore 22 due to her disability rather than any illegal conduct; and (2) that the officers failed to reasonably 23 accommodate Moore in the moments leading up to and following her arrest. However, the 24 particular factual assertions plaintiff plans to use to support these theories have been vague from 25 the beginning. For instance, in his opposition to the City’s motion for summary judgment, 26 plaintiff did not explain his argument that officers arrested Moore because of her disability, and 27 maintained (incorrectly) that he “[did] not have to explain a reasonable accommodation.” SJ Opp. 28 (dkt. 62) at 25. 1 Even at this late pre-trial date, plaintiff remains vague about the specifics of his ADA 2 claim. He does not explain in his pre-trial briefing which facts support his theory that the officers 3 arrested Moore because of her disability. See, e.g., Lewis v. Truitt, 960 F. Supp. 175, 176–77 4 (S.D. Ind. 1997) (denying summary judgment on ADA claim where plaintiff, a deaf man, claimed 5 that officers arrested him for resisting law enforcement because he could not understand their 6 commands); Jackson v. Inhabitants of Town of Sanford, No. CIV. 94-12-P-H, 1994 WL 589617, 7 at *6 (D. Me. Sept. 23, 1994) (denying summary judgment where plaintiff alleged that officers 8 arrested him for drunk driving because his speech was slurred due to a past stroke). 9 Nor does plaintiff clearly articulate the reasonable accommodation he argues the City should have provided Moore. He offers various explanations at various points in his briefing, but 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 does not explain any of his proposed accommodations in enough depth to allow the Court to 12 understand his arguments on the issues of (1) exactly what actions he would have had the officers 13 take that they did not in fact take, and (2) why the officers’ failure to take his proposed actions 14 amounted to a failure to reasonably accommodate. 15 The Court construes the City’s request to clarify as a motion for summary judgment on 16 plaintiff’s remaining claims. Given the importance of clarifying the issues before trial, the Court 17 will entertain the motion. 18 In addition, plaintiff has submitted declarations which tend to show that the City failed to 19 timely produce a document regarding the Berkeley Police Department’s policy for complying with 20 the ADA that was responsive to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Dkt. 115. Plaintiff states that the 21 City’s failure to disclose this document hindered him in developing officer testimony, developing 22 expert testimony, and performing discovery. For purposes of responding to the motion for 23 summary judgment, plaintiff is permitted to file a supplemental declaration by its police-practices 24 expert explaining how the officers failed to comply with the newly discovered ADA policy. See 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The Court does not see the need to allow for additional discovery or 26 depositions at this stage, given the detailed record of the officers’ actions. See dkt. 69. However, 27 if plaintiff still believes that he is unable to present facts essential to justifying its opposition to the 28 motion for summary judgment, he may submit a declaration to this effect along with his 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?