Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02154/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02154-6/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

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision *

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Rules” are to 1

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD, )

) 02:04-cv-2154-GEB-PAN(JFM)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

DEL TACO, INC., d/b/a DEL TACO )

# 115; PHILIPPE DURAND GORRY, ) 

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 56(b). In response, Plaintiff requests a Rule 56(f) 1

continuance. For the reasons discussed below, the request for a

continuance is granted. 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) provides a device for

litigants to avoid summary judgment when they have not had sufficient

time to develop affirmative evidence.” United States v. Kitsap

Physicians Service, 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). “A party

requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) must identify by

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 70 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 5
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

When a party requests a Rule 56(f) continuance after the 2

discovery completion date prescribed in a Rule 16 Scheduling Order,

that party must also demonstrate “good cause” exists under Rule 16(b)

to conduct further discovery. Cf. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good

cause’ requirement, like that for Rule 56(f) relief, considers the

diligence of the party seeking relief.” FMC Corp. v. Vendo Co., 196

F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1030 (E.D. Cal. 2002). As a result, the diligence

analysis under both rules has been combined. (See infra, page 3-4.)

2

affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and

explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v.

City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006).

If the affidavit reveals “a continuance is needed to obtain facts

essential to preclude summary judgment,” then “a district court should

continue [the] summary judgment motion.” State of California v.

Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). However, if the party

requesting the continuance failed “to conduct discovery diligently,”

the district court may deny the Rule 56(f) request. Pfingston v.

Ronan Engineering Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating

“the failure to conduct discovery diligently is grounds for the denial

of a Rule 56(f) motion”); California Union Ins. Co. v. American

Diversified Sav. Bank, 914 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating

“the district court does not abuse its discretion by denying further

discovery if the [party requesting a Rule 56(f) continuance] . . .

failed diligently to pursue discovery in the past”).2

In this action, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants

under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and various

California statues, alleging approximately fifty architectural

barriers in and around the Del Taco restaurant located at 5900 Florin

Road in Sacramento deny him full and equal access to the restaurant. 

(Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 1-2, 18-21, Ex. A.) In their motion for summary

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 70 Filed 07/10/06 Page 2 of 5
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

judgment, Defendants assert Plaintiff’s ADA claim is moot because they

recently modified the restaurant and removed all of the alleged

architectural barriers. (Defs.’ Mot. at 11.) Plaintiff rejoins that

he cannot adequately respond to Defendants’ mootness argument without

conducting a site inspection of the restaurant. (Hubbard Decl. ¶ 7.) 

Plaintiff maintains that a site inspection will allow him to determine

whether the previously identified architectural barriers have been

removed and whether other barriers have been created by the

modifications to the restaurant. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8, 10.) Plaintiff argues

that if the architectural barriers have not been removed his ADA claim

is not moot and a genuine issue of material fact would preclude

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Id. ¶ 8, 10, 12.) 

Defendants raise several objections to Plaintiff’s request

for a continuance. First, Defendants argue that a site inspection

will not “allow Plaintiff to obtain facts that preclude summary

judgment.” (Defs.’ Opp’n at 4.) However, “[w]hether [D]efendants

have removed the architectural barriers is the central issue in this

case.” Sanford v. Del Taco, Inc., 2005 WL 3080930, *2 (E.D. Cal.

2005). “If [Plaintiff] inspects the restaurant and finds that

[D]efendants have not removed the barriers, then his claim is not moot

under the ADA. The facts gained from a[] site inspection could defeat

the motion for summary judgment.” Id. Consequently, “knowing exactly

what modifications were made [to the restaurant] constitutes soughtafter facts clearly essential to [P]laintiff’s ability to respond to

[D]efendant’s motion for summary judgment.” Eiden v. Home Depot USA,

Inc., 2005 WL 2240462, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2006). 

In addition, Defendants argue Plaintiff should not be

granted a Rule 56(f) continuance because he did not diligently conduct

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 70 Filed 07/10/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Defendants also contend Plaintiff knew or should have known 3

about the modifications since May 10, 2006, the day Defendants

provided Plaintiff with a draft expert supplemental report. (Defs.’

Mot. at 2, 5.) However, a comparison of the draft and the final

reports reveals that modifications discussed in the final report are

not included in the draft report. (Compare Defs.’ Ex. 2, with Defs.’

Ex. 3.) For example, the first page of the final report states that

two new signs have been installed; however, no such notice appears on

the first page of the draft report. (Id.) Consequently, Plaintiff

did not have notice of all of the modifications until May 31, 2006. 

4

discovery before Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on

June 12, 2006. (Defs.’ Mot. at 2.) Defendants contend Plaintiff knew

or should have known about the restaurant modifications since May 31,

2006, the day Defendants provided Plaintiff with a final supplemental

expert report discussing the modifications. (Id.) Defendants argue 3

Plaintiff had “two weeks since the supplemental expert report . . . to

conduct . . . a site inspection” before Defendants filed their motion

for summary judgment. (Id. at 3.) However, under the circumstances

here, the fact that Plaintiff did not conduct a site inspection during

those two weeks does not reveal a lack of diligence. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a Rule 56(f) continuance

is granted because “an additional site inspection could lead to

essential facts that would defeat [the] motion for summary judgment.” 

See Sanford, 2005 WL 3080930, *2. In addition, Plaintiff is granted a

site inspection of the restaurant for the limited purpose of

determining whether Defendants have removed the alleged architectural

barriers; the site inspection shall be completed within twenty [20]

days from the date on which this Order is filed. 

The hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and 

Plaintiff’s related motion to strike is continued to August 7, 2006,

at 9:00 a.m. Any opposition to the motion for summary judgment shall

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 70 Filed 07/10/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

be filed no later than July 31, 2006; any reply shall be filed no

later than August 4, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 70 Filed 07/10/06 Page 5 of 5