Canales et al v. AMPCO System Parking, Inc. et al

Filing 90

MINUTE ORDER granting 86 Defendant's Motion to Compel Supplementation of Discovery Responses of Plaintiff Victor Barrera, as set forth in the Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/4/2015.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02571-RM-MJW
ANNETTE CANALES and
VICTOR BARRERA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMPCO SYSTEM PARKING a/k/a ABM Parking Services, Inc.,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Supplementation of
Discovery Responses of Plaintiff Victor Barrera (Docket No. 86) is GRANTED.
Defendant seeks current records regarding Plaintiff Barrera’s medical condition,
records that have obvious relevance to a failure-to-accommodate case brought under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff disputes the relevance of the records,
arguing that this case isn’t about whether Plaintiff has a disability, but about whether
Defendant made sufficient efforts to accommodate the disability they perceived.
Plaintiff cites no authority for this distinction. It is true that, in a “regarded as
disabled” case where the plaintiff challenges adverse employment actions but does not
seek accommodation or challenge a failure to accommodate, the plaintiff’s medical
condition has no relevance as a matter of law. See, e.g., Butler v. Louisiana Dep’t of
Pub. Safety, 2013 WL 2407567 (M.D. La. May 29, 2013). But this is a failure-toaccommodate case. It turns on whether Defendant could or could not have provided an
accommodation––not, as Plaintiff argues, whether Defendant put enough thought and
effort into the decision not to do so.
It is therefore ORDERED that:
•

Plaintiff shall supplement his discovery responses to the Defendant’s
Interrogatory No. 12 and Defendant’s Request for Production No. 2;

•

On or before May 29, 2015, Plaintiff shall either (1) provide all information,
documents, and identification of healthcare providers relating to medical
treatment for Plaintiff’s back administered since January 28, 2013, or (2)

sign releases so Defendant may obtain the information, documents, or
identification information if Plaintiff does not have such things in his
possession, control, or custody; and
•

Each party shall pay their own attorneys fees and costs with regard to this
motion, as the Court finds that it would be unjust under the circumstances
to make an award of expenses.

Date: May 4, 2015