Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02454/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02454-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a 

Washington Corporation, and DOES 1–10, 

Defendants. /

No. C 17-02454 WHA

ORDER FOLLOWING

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

On September 10, the Court held a three-hour evidentiary hearing at which five

witnesses testified. Sufficient evidence was adduced to support the proposition that plaintiff

Scott Johnson is engaged in the business of enforcing federal and state disability laws, that he is

confined to wheelchair, and that his investigatory practices have included, among other things,

sending assistants into businesses to obtain receipts for cash purchases, then in litigation

portraying those purchase as having been made by him. Plaintiff’s investigatory practices have

also included authorizing his assistants to look for violations of disability laws while traveling

on personal vacations, even though plaintiff was not himself present, so that plaintiff could send

demand letters to those establishments.

Based upon the evidentiary hearing, these findings, and the showing of counsel, the

following discovery is now ordered: plaintiff must turn over all intake forms, receipts, and

photographs related to plaintiff’s alleged visits to the single Starbucks store at issue in this case. 

To the extent such materials contain privileged work product, this order finds that the materials

are otherwise discoverable under FRCP 26(b)(1) and that defendant has shown that it has

Case 3:17-cv-02454-WHA Document 71 Filed 09/11/18 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

substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain

their substantial equivalent by other means. Plaintiff shall produce these documents (all of

which were already collected and shown to the undersigned judge in camera) to defendant by

SEPTEMBER 17 AT NOON unless emergency relief is sought from our court of appeals by that

same time.

This order does not reach the further question of whether or not similar documents

should be produced for plaintiff’s visits to California Starbucks locations that are the subject of

separate lawsuits. The Court will review the further materials lodged by plaintiff for in camera

review and will issue a ruling as to those materials in due course.

Also at the evidentiary hearing, defense counsel noted plaintiff’s practice of remaining

silent in the pleadings as to the actual dates plaintiff visited the businesses sued by plaintiff. 

This practice makes it impossible for the defense to consult other public filings and to thereby

construct a chronology of when and where plaintiff visited on a given day (to see if plaintiff

could plausibly have visited the store in question in light of other locations visited). Plaintiff

has engaged in “drive-bys” and/or visits to upwards of thirty businesses on a given day. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel must review all of plaintiff’s intake forms and supply defense

counsel with a list of businesses and locations plaintiff visited on the same dates as plaintiff

visited the Starbucks store at issue in this case. This discovery is proportional to the needs of

the case and has been limited to plaintiff’s activities on the seven dates he alleges to have

visited the Starbucks at issue. Plaintiff shall produce this list to defendant by SEPTEMBER 24

AT NOON unless emergency relief is sought from our court of appeals by SEPTEMBER 17 AT

NOON. 

Further briefing on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment remains HELD IN

ABEYANCE pending resolution of the above discovery maters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2018. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-02454-WHA Document 71 Filed 09/11/18 Page 2 of 2