Smith v. Bradley Pizza, Inc. et al

Filing 131

ORDER in Response to 127 Letter to Magistrate Judge, 126 Letter to Magistrate Judge. Defendants' request to compel a site inspection is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 8/23/2018. (BJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Scott Smith,

Case No. 0:17-cv-2032-WMW-KMM
Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER

Bradley Pizza, Inc., Pamela M. Dahl,
Defendants.

Defendants Bradley Pizza, Inc., and Pamela Dahl have asked the Court to
compel Plaintiff Scott Smith to permit them access to the interior of his home so that
they may inspect the premises to determine whether he is able to navigate around
barriers comparable to those alleged in his complaint. (See ECF No. 127.) Mr. Smith
opposes the Defendants’ request for an inspection, arguing that it is irrelevant to the
issue of standing or the merits. (ECF No. 126.) For the reasons that follow, the
Defendants’ request is denied.
In another case where Mr. Smith alleges that architectural barriers prevent him
from equal access to a business as guaranteed by the ADA, the defendants, who are
represented by the same counsel as Bradley Pizza and Ms. Dahl, requested the same
permission to inspect the interior of Mr. Smith’s home. See Smith v. RW’s Bierstube, Inc.,
et al., No. 17-cv-1866 (PJS/HB), Doc. No. 90 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2018) (Order).
Thoroughly analyzing the arguments made by the parties, Magistrate Judge Hildy
Bowbeer denied the defendants’ request in the Bierstube case. Judge Bowbeer found
that: (1) the defendants failed to show how the measurements of the interior of
Mr. Smith’s residence “would be comparable or probative of the effect of parking lot
conditions on his disability”; and (2) an inspection of Mr. Smith’s “apartment would
be highly intrusive, and any possible probative value would be far outweighed by the
invasion of his privacy.” Id., Doc. No. 90 at 9–10. Further, Judge Bowbeer agreed
with the Bierstube defendants that “measurements taken in the parking lot and near the
entrance areas [of Mr. Smith’s apartment building] could be probative of disputed
issues,” but concluded that a Rule 34 request for an inspection was not appropriate
1

because Mr. Smith does not own the apartment building and cannot grant or deny
permission to inspect common areas. Id., Doc. No. 90 at 10–11. Judge Bowbeer
therefore denied the motion to compel inspection of the parking lot and entrance
areas and noted that the defendant “is free to make arrangements to inspect the
parking lot at Smith’s apartment building through appropriate channels.” Id., Doc.
No. 90 at 11.
With respect to the discovery dispute here, the Court finds there is no material
difference between this case and Bierstube. Having reviewed the letters filed in this case
and the briefing provided in Bierstube, the Court adopts in full the reasoning of Judge
Bowbeer’s August 20, 2018 Order in Bierstube. In particular, the Court agrees that any
possible relevance of measurements of the interior of Mr. Smith’s apartment is
outweighed by the intrusiveness of such an inspection. Accordingly, the Court denies
Defendants’ request in this case for permission to inspect the interior of Mr. Smith’s
apartment. Additionally, for the same reasons identified in Judge Bowbeer’s Order,
this Court will not permit an inspection of the parking lot and entryway to
Mr. Smith’s apartment pursuant to a Rule 34 request for inspection served on
Mr. Smith. However, the Court concludes that an inspection of these exterior aspects
of Mr. Smith’s building could be relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses and is
proportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, this Order does not prevent
Defendants from making arrangements to inspect the parking lot and entrance areas
at Mr. Smith’s apartment building through appropriate channels.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
Defendants’ request to compel an inspection is DENIED.

Date: August 23, 2018

s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States Magistrate Judge

2