Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. et al v. California Department of Transportation et al

Filing 308

DISCOVERY ORDER re 306 Letter, filed by Ben Rockwell, Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/30/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants. / CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C 06-05125 SBA (MEJ) ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On April 27, 2009, Plaintiffs and Defendants California Department of Transportation and Will Kempton (collectively, "Caltrans") filed a joint letter regarding a discovery dispute over documents that Caltrans produced concerning new construction and alterations of roadways and pedestrian facilities. (Dkt. #306.) Specifically, Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production of Documents Nos. 66-69 requested that Defendants produce documents related to sections of roadways and pedestrian facilities that have been newly-constructed or altered since March 22, 1988. One of the documents that Defendants produced in response is a list detailing "major projects" in chronological order from 1990 to present. In the version of the document that Defendants produced to Plaintiffs, Defendants redacted all information except that relating to a fiveyear period spanning 2001 to 2006. Plaintiffs now seek an order from the Court requiring Caltrans to produce the redacted portions of the major projects list. In support, Plaintiffs argue that, contrary to Defendants' prior

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

representation that producing the information contained in the major projects list from 1992 forward would be unduly burdensome, Defendants have immediate access to such information, as evidenced by the fact that they were able to print out a listing of projects dating from 1990 to the present. Thus, Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants to produce a copy of the redacted portions of the major projects list and the original electronic format of the entire database for the years 1990 to the present. Defendants, however, contend that the Court already considered Plaintiffs request at the January 22, 2007 hearing. They point out that, at that time, the Court held that Defendants must only produce documents from a five-year period preceding the initiation of this lawsuit. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs are now improperly attempting to seek reconsideration of the Court's prior order. Defendants also maintain that - as they previously indicated to the Court - compiling a list of major projects from 1992 to present for each of the 12 districts would be unduly burdensome. Defendants therefore urge the Court to deny Plaintiffs' requests. The Court has considered the parties' arguments and agrees with Defendants. The Court previously considered Plaintiffs' arguments on this issue during the January 22nd hearing. At that time, the Court balanced Plaintiffs' proffered necessity for the information dating back to 1992 with Defendants' burden of compiling and producing it. The Court concluded that Defendants need only produce information for a period going back five years. Plaintiffs have not presented any convincing arguments compelling the Court to reconsider or amend its prior ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' requests to order Defendants to produce the redacted portions of the document and to provide the original electronic format of the entire database. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2009

MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge

2