Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01598/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01598-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12181 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jill Wiele, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Zenith Arizona, Inc., a Minnesota 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

No. CV 11-01598-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 15). The Court 

will grant the motion in part for the following reasons. 

Plaintiff suffers from cerebral palsy and requires the use of a wheelchair for 

mobility. In August 2011, Plaintiff was a guest at Defendant’s Pima Inn & Suites hotel in 

Scottsdale, Arizona. During her stay, Plaintiff claims to have encountered several 

discriminatory architectural barriers, including that (1) several ramps at the property are 

excessively steep; (2) an exterior ramp is built-up and projects into vehicular traffic; (3) 

her allegedly accessible room did not have sufficient clearance between the foot of her 

bed and the restroom; and (4) the bathroom toilet seat in her room is too low. Plaintiff 

now seeks property-wide discovery from Defendant to determine the full scope of the 

property’s architectural barriers to accessibility which are in violation of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and the Arizonans with Disabilities Act, 

A.R.S. § 41-1492 et seq. Specifically, Plaintiff requests a “comprehensive site inspection 

of Defendant’s hotel and related written discovery[,]” including: 

Case 2:11-cv-01598-NVW Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

all of the guest rooms alleged to be “accessible” under ADAAG 9.2, a 

representative sampling of other guest rooms to determine compliance with 

ADAAG 9.2.2(3), all interior and exterior common areas and amenities open to 

guests of the hotel, including, but not limited to, pool area, dining areas, outdoor 

patios and seating, ramps, routes, parking and lobby areas. 

(Doc. 15 at 2.) 

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request for a property-wide discovery on the basis 

that (1) Plaintiff’s claims are moot because Defendant has corrected the architectural 

barriers that were specifically named in Plaintiff’s complaint; (2) the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision in Oliver v. Ralph’s Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011) limits 

speculative discovery of potential barriers not enumerated in the complaint; and (3) if the 

Court orders additional discovery, Plaintiff’s request should be narrowed. 

As an initial matter, the Court is not inclined to deny a discovery motion on 

grounds of mootness; rather, such argument is more properly raised in a motion to 

dismiss, which has not been filed. Further, for the reasons outlined in Plaintiff’s reply 

(Doc. 19), it does not appear that a mootness argument would be well-taken. 

Turning to the substance of Plaintiff’s request, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s 

request in part. Under Doran v. 7-Eleven, 524 F.3d 1034, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2008), the 

Ninth Circuit held 

 ...where a disabled person has Article III standing to bring a claim for injunctive 

 relief under the ADA because of at least one alleged statutory violation of which 

 he or she has knowledge and which deters access to, or full use and enjoyment of, 

 a place of public accommodation, he or she may conduct discovery to determine 

 what, if any, other barriers affecting his or her disability existed at the time he or 

 she brought the claim. 

This holding fits the facts of this case directly: Plaintiff encountered and was deterred by 

the architectural barriers enumerated in her Complaint; accordingly, she is permitted to 

conduct discovery to determine what other barriers existed at the time she brought her 

claim. Id. (permitting discovery beyond Plaintiff’s encountered barriers to “allow[] the 

plaintiff to obtain by formal means the information about the scope of the defendant’s 

violations that he may have been unable to safely ascertain himself because of those same 

Case 2:11-cv-01598-NVW Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

violations”). The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Oliver does not compel a contrary result; 

that case dealt with pleading standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, not the scope of 

permissible discovery. Oliver does not provide a basis, in this circumstance, to limit the 

scope of Plaintiff’s discovery to which she is otherwise entitled under Doran. 

 While Plaintiff is therefore entitled to conduct additional discovery of the 

property, Defendant will not be compelled to allow a full-site inspection. Plaintiff has 

requested generally “property-wide” discovery, including a full-site inspection of 

Defendant’s property (Doc. 5 at 2). However, Plaintiff is only permitted to conduct 

discovery of barriers which actually “affect[]...her disability[.]” Doran, 524 F.3d at 

1044. Plaintiff’s discovery will therefore be limited to the areas of the property which 

potentially have barriers that could affect Plaintiff’s disability. Accordingly, the Court 

will limit Plaintiff’s discovery by excluding non-public areas of the property, as well as 

areas specifically designated for the hotel’s male guests. The Court notes that Plaintiff 

has agreed to Defendant’s proposals to narrow the scope of discovery, with a few “minor 

exceptions” (Doc. 19 at 7). As stated above, the Court will not require Defendant to 

allow Plaintiff access to non-public areas of the property; otherwise, the Court is 

confident the parties will be able to reach an agreement on the permissible scope of the 

inspection in light of this order. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery 

(Doc. 15) is granted to the extent the Plaintiff may conduct a more comprehensive 

inspection of the property, but exclusive of non-public areas and areas specifically 

designated for the hotel’s male guests. 

Dated this 10th day of January, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01598-NVW Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 Page 3 of 3