Scott Johnson v. Blackhawk Centercal, LLC et al

Filing 71

ORDER FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/11/2018. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 17-02454 WHA

v.

13

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a
Washington Corporation, and DOES 1–10,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

ORDER FOLLOWING
EVIDENTIARY HEARING

On September 10, the Court held a three-hour evidentiary hearing at which five

17

witnesses testified. Sufficient evidence was adduced to support the proposition that plaintiff

18

Scott Johnson is engaged in the business of enforcing federal and state disability laws, that he is

19

confined to wheelchair, and that his investigatory practices have included, among other things,

20

sending assistants into businesses to obtain receipts for cash purchases, then in litigation

21

portraying those purchase as having been made by him. Plaintiff’s investigatory practices have

22

also included authorizing his assistants to look for violations of disability laws while traveling

23

on personal vacations, even though plaintiff was not himself present, so that plaintiff could send

24

demand letters to those establishments.

25

Based upon the evidentiary hearing, these findings, and the showing of counsel, the

26

following discovery is now ordered: plaintiff must turn over all intake forms, receipts, and

27

photographs related to plaintiff’s alleged visits to the single Starbucks store at issue in this case.

28

To the extent such materials contain privileged work product, this order finds that the materials
are otherwise discoverable under FRCP 26(b)(1) and that defendant has shown that it has

1

substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain

2

their substantial equivalent by other means. Plaintiff shall produce these documents (all of

3

which were already collected and shown to the undersigned judge in camera) to defendant by

4

SEPTEMBER 17 AT NOON unless emergency relief is sought from our court of appeals by that

5

same time.

6

This order does not reach the further question of whether or not similar documents

7

should be produced for plaintiff’s visits to California Starbucks locations that are the subject of

8

separate lawsuits. The Court will review the further materials lodged by plaintiff for in camera

9

review and will issue a ruling as to those materials in due course.
Also at the evidentiary hearing, defense counsel noted plaintiff’s practice of remaining

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

silent in the pleadings as to the actual dates plaintiff visited the businesses sued by plaintiff.

12

This practice makes it impossible for the defense to consult other public filings and to thereby

13

construct a chronology of when and where plaintiff visited on a given day (to see if plaintiff

14

could plausibly have visited the store in question in light of other locations visited). Plaintiff

15

has engaged in “drive-bys” and/or visits to upwards of thirty businesses on a given day.

16

Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel must review all of plaintiff’s intake forms and supply defense

17

counsel with a list of businesses and locations plaintiff visited on the same dates as plaintiff

18

visited the Starbucks store at issue in this case. This discovery is proportional to the needs of

19

the case and has been limited to plaintiff’s activities on the seven dates he alleges to have

20

visited the Starbucks at issue. Plaintiff shall produce this list to defendant by SEPTEMBER 24

21

AT NOON unless

22

NOON.

23
24

emergency relief is sought from our court of appeals by SEPTEMBER 17 AT

Further briefing on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment remains HELD IN
ABEYANCE

pending resolution of the above discovery maters.

25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27

Dated: September 11, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2