Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00990/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00990-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1 

19-CV-990-H(WVG) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT SCHUTZA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

 Case No.: 19-CV-990-H(WVG) 

ORDER FOLLOWING 

TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY 

CONFERENCE 

The Court held a telephonic discovery conference on March 20, 2020 and ordered 

supplemental briefing, which the parties filed. (Doc. Nos. 20, 22.) At issue is whether 

Plaintiff should be compelled to produce documents responsive to Defendants’ Request for 

Production of Document No. 12 (“RFP 12”). Upon considering the parties’ oral and written 

arguments, the Court finds in favor of Plaintiff. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh 

Civil Rights Act alleging (1) he encountered architectural barriers at Defendant’s Costco 

Wholesale Warehouse in Santee, California; and (2) Costco failed to modify policies, 

practices, and procedures at the Santee warehouse which denied Plaintiff access to Costco’s 

Case 3:19-cv-00990-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

19-CV-990-H(WVG) 

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

goods and services (i.e., Plaintiff claims that Costco refused to allow him to use a lowered 

portion of a transaction counter and instead, required him to use a clipboard). 

Costco propounded written discovery on Plaintiff, and Plaintiff responded on 

February 24, 2020. At issue is Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s RFP 12: 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 

All documents relating to any oral testimony given by Plaintiff, whether in 

court or by deposition, in any lawsuit filed by Plaintiff asserting claims under 

the ADA, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, or the Disabled Persons Act, which 

identifies the name of the case in which such testimony was given, including 

any transcripts, notices of deposition, or subpoena. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: 

Objection: Outside the scope of relevant discovery. Further, this request is 

patently overbroad and irrelevant. Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits have nothing to do 

with his encounter with barriers to access at the Subject Property. 

Additionally, this information is equally available to defendants through the 

public domain. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff will produce a case list of lawsuits 

based on the ADA, the Unruh Act, or the California Disabled Persons Act in 

which he was a Plaintiff for 2018 and 2019. 

In addition to the above objections, Plaintiff also argues that the RFP is overly burdensome, 

disproportionate to the needs of the case, and that the information Defendant seeks can 

more easily and efficiently be obtained by simply taking Plaintiff’s deposition. In support 

of RFP 12’s relevance, Defendant argues: 

Plaintiff’s prior testimony in other ADA matters is relevant because it is likely 

to provide background on Plaintiff’s disability and how his disability impacts 

his daily functions. This testimony may in turn serve to limit the amount of 

discovery needed here, for example during Plaintiff’s deposition or of 

Plaintiff’s doctors, or simply better inform Defendant relating to Plaintiff’s 

physical condition and how certain barriers may impact him. 

Plaintiff’s prior testimony is also relevant because it is likely to provide 

information on the extent of Plaintiff’s knowledge of and familiarity with his 

rights under the ADA. For example, Plaintiff has filed upwards of 225 ADA 

lawsuits in the Southern District of California alone. It is probable that certain 

of those cases related to similar types of barriers as to those alleged here, i.e., 

alleged features of the restroom that fail to comply with ADAAG. In this case, 

Plaintiff asserts that he encountered an uninsulated drainpipe in the 

Case 3:19-cv-00990-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

19-CV-990-H(WVG) 

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

Warehouse restroom on multiple occasions; twice during 2018 and twice 

during May 2019. But, Plaintiff did not complain or file this lawsuit until more 

than a year after his alleged first encounter with this barrier. 

Evidence that Plaintiff encountered the uninsulated drainpipe in 2018, 

yet waited over a year to raise any complaint, choosing instead to encounter 

the same barrier multiple times thereafter, raises questions both as to 

Plaintiff’s credibility and his refusal to mitigate damages. . . . A trier of fact 

could determine based on this evidence that Plaintiff did not encounter an 

uninsulated drainpipe during 2018. Moreover, this determination could also 

cause the trier of fact to question Plaintiff’s credibility in its entirety and reject 

his testimony that he ever encountered an uninsulated drainpipe. (The same is 

true of the clipboard issue as well.) 

Moreover, if Plaintiff, knowledgeable of his rights under the ADA, 

repeatedly encountered this alleged barrier because he sought to increase his 

potential damages under the Unruh Act, then this conduct also calls into 

question the reasonableness of his claim and his failure to mitigate his 

damages. Each of these issues turns to some degree on the extent of Plaintiff’s 

knowledge of his rights under the ADA, evidence which can be gleaned from 

his prior testimony given as a serial ADA plaintiff. 

(Doc. No. 20 at 3-4.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 

any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ 

relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not 

be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

III. DISCUSSION

 As an initial matter, Defendant has made a plausible case for the relevance of 

deposition or court transcripts in prior cases involving Plaintiff. However, under Rule 26, 

relevance is simply the initial hurdle a party seeking discovery must pass. The second 

hurdle Defendant must clear is proportionality, which Defendant did not address in its 

Case 3:19-cv-00990-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

19-CV-990-H(WVG) 

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

supplemental brief. When considering Rule 26’s enumerated factors that bear on 

proportionality, the balance of factors weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. 

First, the importance of the issues favors Defendant. Defendant made a plausible 

case for the importance of Plaintiff’s knowledge of his rights under the ADA and how his 

knowledge and purported inaction after initially encountering ADA violations might 

impact the scope of this case. Contrary to Plaintiff’s characterization of Defendant’s 

position, Defendant is not seeking the transcripts to directly counter Plaintiff’s credibility. 

Rather, Defendant contends the transcripts could show Plaintiff’s knowledge, which then 

could bear on his credibility in light of his subsequent action or inaction. Credibility of a 

plaintiff, of course, is an important issue in any case. This factor favors Defendant. 

Second, the amount in controversy in this ADA case is extremely low when 

compared to many cases filed in federal courts. This factor favors Plaintiff. 

Next, relative access to the information favors Plaintiff. Although the information 

Defendant seeks is contained in deposition or court transcripts that are not accessible to 

Defendant, that information is nonetheless readily accessible to Defendant by taking 

Plaintiff’s deposition. Since Plaintiff testified based on his personal knowledge at prior 

depositions or in trial, the information contained in those transcripts will match the 

information that Plaintiff will provide during a deposition in this case. Thus, although 

Defendant lacks access to the transcripts, it has access to the source (i.e., Plaintiff himself) 

of the information in the transcripts. This factor favors nonproduction. 

Fourth, the parties’ resources are not an issue here; this factor favors neither side. 

Fifth, resolving issues of Plaintiff’s knowledge and credibility are important, as they 

could sway the outcome of the case. This factor favors Defendant. 

Finally, the Court finds that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery does 

not outweigh its likely benefit. Here, the most salient reason this factor heavily favors 

Plaintiff is his availability to sit for deposition in this case and Defendant’s ability to 

question him about the very topics it wishes to discover in the deposition transcripts. 

Defendant has identified nothing that is solely contained in prior deposition or court 

Case 3:19-cv-00990-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

19-CV-990-H(WVG) 

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

transcripts that cannot be obtained by taking Plaintiff’s deposition now, a far less 

burdensome means of obtaining the information Defendant seeks. If Plaintiff testified 

about a topic (relevant to this case) in the past, that knowledge remains with him, and he 

can testify about the topic again in this case. Thus, the Court sees no pressing reason to 

subject Plaintiff to the tremendous burden and expense of producing past deposition or 

court transcripts. The burden here would consist of sifting through hundreds of past cases 

those in which Plaintiff was deposed or testified at trial. But even if Plaintiff presently has 

a list of such cases at his fingertips, he would likely need to redact the deposition or trial 

transcripts of information that is not responsive to RFP 12 since past depositions or trials 

ostensibly covered topics specific to the issues in those cases and would not bear on this 

case.1

 The tedious review and redaction of the transcripts would be overly burdensome 

given how simple taking Plaintiff’s deposition in this case would be. Because the 

information Defendant seeks is equally available from Plaintiff himself, production of 

deposition or court transcripts—and the tasks related to such production—presents a high 

burden for Plaintiff disproportionate to the needs of this case. Accordingly, this factor 

heavily favors Plaintiff. 

IV. CONCLUSION

 The information Defendant seeks appears relevant to the case. However, based on 

the foregoing balancing of factors, the discovery is not proportional to the needs of this 

case. Accordingly, Plaintiff need not respond to RFP 12. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 10, 2020 

                                              

1

 It would not be reasonable to require Plaintiff to produce unredacted transcripts.

Case 3:19-cv-00990-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5