Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03772/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03772-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON LETCHER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

ET AL,

Defendants. /

No. C-05-03772 JSW (EDL)

ORDER

This Court has been asked to manage the parties’ discovery disputes with respect to General

Order 56. First, Plaintiff’s declaration does not comply with the requirements set forth by the

District Court Judge. During an April 28, 2006 hearing, the District Court Judge specifically

ordered Plaintiff to submit two declarations, one based on the “collective knowledge” of Plaintiff’s

attorneys and experts, and another declaration by Plaintiff herself which was to describe “the areas

that she’s aware of, personally, and personally encountered.” See Docket 41, Ex. 1; see also Docket

No. 31 (ordering “[d]eclaration from plaintiff specifying in detail the areas plaintiff is personally

aware, encountered, or denied access”). Plaintiff’s declaration nonetheless references knowledge

she has acquired from others. For example, Plaintiff declares that “[b]ased on my past visits to

Davies Symphony Hall, as well as what I have learned from our access consultant Barry Atwood . . .

and from my attorneys Paul Rein and Patricia Barbosa, I am concerned about the following areas

and barriers to access which may cause me difficulties at the time of a future visit.” Docket No. 36 ¶

3 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to file a revised declaration within

seven calendar days of the date of this Order, which identifies only those areas of which Plaintiff is

Case 3:05-cv-03772-JSW Document 42 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

personally aware or has personally encountered. 

Second, the Court orders the parties to file a joint statement setting forth the parties’

agreements and disputes as to the scope of Plaintiff’s inspections, in light of Judge White’s

comments during the April 28, 2006 hearing. This joint statement shall not exceed five pages in

length and shall be filed within fourteen days of the date of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03772-JSW Document 42 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2