Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01126/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01126-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance,

the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GYPSIE JONES,

NO. CIV. S-05-1126 FCD DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,

a Washington corporation, dba

COSTCO #133, and DOES ONE to

FIFTY, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter comes before the court on defendant Costco

Wholesale Corporation’s (“Costco”) request for reconsideration of

the Magistrate Judge’s ruling regarding a discovery dispute

between the parties. For the reasons set forth below,1

defendants’ motion is DENIED.

Case 2:05-cv-01126-FCD-DAD Document 32 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action, alleging that

she encountered certain architectural barriers which violated the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) at defendant Costco’s

Redding, California warehouse store. During the course of

discovery, plaintiff served defendant with a Rule 34 request

seeking the inspection of the public areas of Costco’s warehouse

to determine the existence of ADA violations. Defendant objected

to the unlimited scope of the inspection. Because the parties

were unable to resolve their dispute regarding the scope of the

inspection of defendant’s warehouse, the parties submitted a

Joint Discovery Dispute to the Magistrate Judge. On April 28,

2006, the Magistrate Judge issued his order, granting plaintiff’s

motion to compel and denying defendant’s motion for a protective

order.

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s

orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to

law.” In this case, the Magistrate Judge applied Rules 34 and 26

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure2 in resolving the

discovery dispute between the parties. Rule 34 allows any party

to serve on the other party a notice to permit entry upon

designated property and inspection within the scope of Rule

26(b). Rule 26 provides

[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,

not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or

defense of any party . . . . Relevant information need

not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. 

Case 2:05-cv-01126-FCD-DAD Document 32 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1) (West 2006) (emphasis added). As

such, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for broad

discovery. 

Defendant argues that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was

contrary to law because it allows plaintiff an inspection of

barriers which plaintiff may not have encountered or had reason

to know about at the time of filing her complaint. In support of

its argument, defendant cites this court’s holding in White v.

Divine Investments, Inc., 2005 WL 2491543 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7,

2005). In White, the court interpreted the Ninth Circuit’s

decision in Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, Inc., 293 F.3d 1133

(9th Cir. 2002) as confining plaintiff on summary judgment to

addressing only those barriers alleged in the complaint. 

Therefore, the court held that plaintiff did not satisfy the

requirements of Article III standing to sue for additional

barriers not alleged in the complaint. The court also found

persuasive an unpublished decision issued by Judge Levi, Martinez

v. Longs Drugs Stores, 2005 WL 2072013 (E.D. Cal, Aug. 25, 2005),

which arrived at the same conclusion. However, the Ninth Circuit

has not addressed this issue, and at least one subsequent

decision within this district came to the opposite conclusion as

those in White and Martinez. Wilson v. Pier 1 Imports, 413 F.

Supp. 2d 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2006).

However, regardless of the state of the law regarding

Article III standing to sue for barriers not alleged in the

complaint, the Magistrate Judge’s finding involved the

application of Rules 34 and 26, not Article III standing. While

the Magistrate Judge may have expressed his own views and

Case 2:05-cv-01126-FCD-DAD Document 32 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

disagreement with the White decision, he also made clear that

those issues were not before him and that it was clear to him

“that the sought after information is relevant . . . and

reasonably calculated to the discovery of potentially admissible

evidence.” (Tr. of Hr’g, dated Apr. 28, 2006, 5:21-25). 

Discovery is broad under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and the Magistrate Judge found that the inspection of defendant’s

entire warehouse was relevant and was reasonably calculated to

the discovery of potentially admissible evidence pursuant to Rule

26. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s decision to grant

plaintiff’s motion to compel full inspection of the public areas

of the premises is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for

reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 9, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01126-FCD-DAD Document 32 Filed 06/09/06 Page 4 of 4