Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04830/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04830-1/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)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DMITRY YANUSHKEVICH,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRY’S ELECTRONICS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04830-BLF 

ORDER SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 

SITE INSPECTION WITHOUT ORAL 

ARGUMENT AND VACATING 

HEARING; AND GRANTING MOTION

[Re: ECF 16]

In this disability discrimination action, Plaintiff Dmitry Yanushkevich alleges that he lost 

his sight as a child and thus is a “physically disabled person” and a “physically handicapped 

person” as those terms are used in federal and state law. See Compl. ¶ 6. He sues Fry’s 

Electronics, Inc. (“Fry’s”) under the federal American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and state 

law, alleging that on multiple occasions he encountered architectural barriers at the Fry’s 

Electronics retail store (“the Store”) located in Palo Alto, California.1 Compl. ¶¶ 14-19.

Under this Court’s General Order 56, the parties and their counsel, accompanied by experts 

if the parties so elect, must conduct a joint inspection of the premises that are the subject of an 

ADA claim. The joint inspection of the Store and its adjacent parking lot took place on March 11, 

2016. During the inspection, Plaintiff’s expert, Bassam Altwal, was not permitted to open an 

emergency door and thus was not able to determine the pressure required to open the emergency 

door or its closing speed. The post-inspection correspondence between Plaintiff’s counsel and 

 

1

The complaint also names as defendants SI43, LLC and SI11, LLC on the basis that they 

“purchased and/or took possessory control of the premises now known as Fry’s Electronics 

(‘Store’)” in December 2011. Compl. ¶ 11. 

Case 5:15-cv-04830-BLF Document 25 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Fry’s counsel, as well as the declaration of Fry’s expert, Kim Blackseth, reveals that Mr. 

Blackseth made a unilateral determination that Mr. Altwal did not “need” to open the emergency 

door. See Correspondence, Exhs. A-C to Karbelashvli Decl., ECF 16-2, 16-3, 16-4; Blackseth 

Decl., Exh. 21. Mr. Blackseth voiced that opinion to Fry’s management personnel, who then 

refused to disable the alarm on the emergency door to permit Mr. Altwal to open it. Blackseth 

Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 21. 

On March 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present motion to compel a further site inspection so 

that Mr. Altwal can fully inspect the emergency door. Plaintiff noticed the motion for hearing on 

July 28, 2016, but the caption of the motion contained the phrase “Administrative Relief.” See

Pl.’s Mot., ECF 16. Fry’s responded to the motion as though it were an administrative motion, 

and complained that Fry’s was not given sufficient time to respond. See Def.’s Orig. Opp., ECF 

17. Given the confusion regarding the nature of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court granted Fry’s leave 

to file a substitute opposition brief, replacing its original opposition brief in its entirety, on or 

before May 12, 2016. See Order re Briefing on Motion to Compel Site Inspection, ECF 19. The 

Court also granted Plaintiff leave to file a reply to any substitute opposition brief on or before May 

19, 2016. Id. Fry’s filed its substitute brief, erroneously captioned as a “Supplemental 

Opposition,” on May 12, 2016, see Def.’s Substitute Opp., ECF 20, and Plaintiff filed a reply brief 

on May 13, 2016, see Pl.’s Reply, ECF 22.

2

Having reviewed the parties’ briefing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion is 

appropriate for disposition without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the motion 

to compel further site inspection is hereby SUBMITTED for decision and the hearing set for July 

28, 2016 is VACATED. 

The Court has no difficulty determining that Plaintiff is entitled to a further site inspection, 

such inspection to include opening the emergency door. Under Ninth Circuit law, “[a]n ADA 

plaintiff who has Article III standing as a result of at least one barrier at a place of public 

 

2 Given the Court’s order granting Fry’s leave to “file a substitute opposition brief, replacing its 

current opposition brief in its entirety,” the Court considers only the substitute brief filed on May 

12, 2016, ECF 20, and not Fry’s original opposition brief, ECF 17. 

Case 5:15-cv-04830-BLF Document 25 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

accommodation may, in one suit, permissibly challenge all barriers in that public accommodation 

that are related to his or her specific disability.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 

939, 950-51 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An ADA plaintiff 

may sue based upon barriers that he himself has not encountered but that were “identified in his 

expert’s site inspections.” Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus if 

the emergency door constitutes a barrier, Plaintiff may challenge it in this lawsuit even though he 

admittedly has not used the emergency door. 

Unless otherwise limited by a court order, 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (as amended eff. Dec. 

1, 2015). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be 

discoverable.” Id. 

Fry’s argues that the “burden” of disarming the emergency door alarm to permit it to be 

opened for inspection “is outweighed by the relevancy” of the discovery that would have been 

obtained by a full inspection of the door. In support of that argument, Fry’s presents the 

declaration of its expert, Mr. Blackseth, who opines that under California law the Store was 

required to have only one accessible means of egress; the store’s “main door” satisfied the code 

section; and the emergency door was not a primary source of ingress and egress. Blackseth Decl. 

¶ 6.3 Based on those facts, Mr. Blackseth concluded that, “[i]n my professional opinion, there was 

no need for Plaintiffs to require disarming a fire escape door because access was met by the use of 

another existdoor [sic]-namely the front entrance.” Id. ¶ 8. 

The Court is unpersuaded that the “burden” of disarming the emergency door alarm 

 

3

Plaintiff objects to consideration of Mr. Blackseth’s declaration, because it was submitted on 

May 13, 2016, the day after the deadline for Fry’s substitute opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. 

Because it does not appear that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the late filing, the Court in the exercise 

of its discretion will consider Mr. Blackseth’s late-filed declaration.

Case 5:15-cv-04830-BLF Document 25 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

outweighed the likely benefit of a full inspection of the door. As discussed above, if the 

emergency door constitutes a barrier – for example, because it requires too much pressure to open 

or closes too quickly – Plaintiff has standing to assert such barrier in this lawsuit, even if it is 

discovered for the first time during the site inspection. Plaintiff was not required to accept Mr. 

Blackseth’s opinion that the Store’s “main door” satisfied all legal requirements. In the event that 

Plaintiff – after completing discovery – asserts claims based on the emergency door, Fry’s of 

course may defend based on the legal argument raised in Mr. Blackseth’s declaration. However, 

assertion of that legal defense during a site inspection was completely inappropriate. Fry’s was 

not entitled to limit Plaintiff’s inspection of the premises based upon its own unilateral 

determination regarding the merits of any potential claims Plaintiff might bring. This is 

particularly true where, as here, the “burden” of the discovery was quite minimal, and would have 

required that the door alarm be disabled only briefly. Fry’s has not cited any authorities 

supporting its “burden” argument under these circumstances.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further site inspection is GRANTED. During 

the further inspection, the alarm on the emergency door shall be disabled to permit full inspection 

of the emergency door, including opening and closing the door. The further site inspection shall 

be completed on or before August 21, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04830-BLF Document 25 Filed 07/21/16 Page 4 of 4