Crochet v. California College of the Arts ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JILLIAN CROCHET, 7 Case No. 20-cv-01057-WHA (AGT) Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER RE: OCTOBER 2, 2020 9 DISCOVERY DISPUTE CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF THE ARTS, 10 et al., Re: Dkt. No. 64 11 Defendants. 12 So that Jillian Crochet can adequately prepare to depose CCA’s representative on October 13 12, the Court orders CCA to take the following actions by October 9.1 14 Interrogatory No. 5. For each access barrier that Crochet has concretely identified in her 15 complaint,2 CCA must amend its response to Interrogatory No. 5 to identify the administrative 16 remedies, if any, that CCA alleges Crochet has not exhausted. 17 Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 6, 11, 12, 18, 50. CCA must amend its responses to 18 better identify not only what it admits but also what it denies. As examples of what is needed, 19 CCA may look to its responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 2 and 24, which were adequate 20 responses. CCA need not respond to the exact wording of the requests, as Crochet argues CCA 21 must do. See Marchand v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 22 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Milgram 22 Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 558 F. Supp. 629, 636 (W.D. Mo. 1983)). 23 24 1 Before issuing this order, the Court considered Crochet’s October 2 letter brief and CCA’s July 22 letter brief. See ECF Nos. 46, 64. CCA explained in its July 22 letter brief that it stood behind 25 the objections it served in response to Crochet’s discovery requests. 26 2 See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 17 (lack of a wheelchair-accessible double-occupancy unit at the Panoramic Residences); id. ¶ 20 (lack of adjustable temperature controls in Crochet’s unit); id. ¶ 27 (lack of 27 automatic door-opener for the designated accessible restroom in the Hooper building); id. ¶ 30 1 Requests for Admission Nos. 14, 15, 46–48. CCA’s objections (on grounds that the 2 requests are vague, ambiguous, or lack foundation) are overruled. CCA must amend its responses 3 either to admit, to deny, or to provide qualified responses to these requests. See Marchand, 22 4 F.3d at 938; Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 580 (9th Cir. 1992). If 5 CCA can’t do so, it must “state in detail” why not. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). 6 Requests for Admission Nos. 31–40, 42–45. CCA must amend its responses to clarify 7 whether “it has made reasonable inquiry” such that “the information it knows or can readily obtain 8 is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Once CCA obtains the 9 information needed to admit or deny the statements made in these requests, which may not happen 10 until after the October 12 deposition, it must amend its responses again. 11 Request for Admission No. 41. No supplemental response is needed. CCA denied this 12 request for admission in full. 13 Requests for Production Nos. 5–8, 18. CCA must produce a subset of documents 14 responsive to these requests. Specifically, CCA must produce documents that are otherwise 15 responsive to these requests if the documents relate to the facilities that Crochet has specifically 16 identified in her complaint, if they relate to issues of access for persons with physical disabilities, 17 and if they were created between 2015 and the present. After the October 12 deposition, Crochet 18 may move to compel a more fulsome production. But in doing so she would need to explain why 19 documents that fall outside the limitations just imposed are relevant. 20 Requests for Production Nos. 12, 16, 17. CCA must produce the documents in its 21 possession that are responsive to these requests. The documents sought all relate specifically to 22 Crochet and are relevant. 23 Requests for Production Nos. 19, 20. CCA need not produce documents responsive to 24 these requests. Crochet hasn’t explained why the documents sought, which relate to faculty 25 housing and to student housing at residences other than the Panoramic, are relevant. 26 Requests for Production Nos. 21–24, 26–33. For each access barrier that Crochet has 27 concretely identified in her complaint, CCA must produce the documents in its possession that 1 Request for Production No. 25. The record doesn’t support whether the documents 2 || requested, CCA’s tax returns from 2010 to the present, are relevant and proportional to the needs 3 of the case. The parties must meet and confer and, if necessary, submit a further joint letter 4 addressing this request. They may wait to do so until after the October 12 deposition. 5 Requests for Production Nos. 34, 36. CCA’s objections to these requests are overruled. 6 || The documents sought relate to the issue of notice and CCA must produce the documents in its 7 possession that are responsive. 8 Oe Ok 9 CCA must comply with the terms of this order by October 9. 10 Although this order addresses discovery that needs to take place before Crochet deposes 11 CCA’s representative, the Court reminds the parties of their duty to supplement their responses 12 and disclosures as the case proceeds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: October 6, 2020 16 5 oe G.TSE nited States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28