Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02671/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02671-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 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

- 1 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURIZO ANTONINETTI, on behalf of

himself and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING CHIPOTLE’S

MOTION TO COMPEL 20

DEPOSITIONS OF PUTATIVE

CLASS MEMBERS

vs.

CHIPOTLE, INC,, et al.,

Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION

 On April 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification [Doc. No. 88]. Defendant,

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., (Chipotle) has not yet filed an opposition. Chipotle comes before the

Court now to seek a discovery order to conduct depositions of individuals identified by Plaintiffs

as witnesses who signed declarations as putative class members in support of Plaintiff's class

certification motion.

Plaintiff’s claims arise under the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12131, et

seq.), along with certain other state law claims for relief. Jurisdiction is properly in this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Chipotle's Desired Discovery

Chipotle desires to conduct "short, one-hour depositions of 20 of the 41 individuals whom

Plaintiffs identified as witnesses in their supplemental disclosures, and who then signed

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 15
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 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

declarations as putative class members in support of Plaintiffs' class certification motion."

(Chipotle's Letter Brief). The proposed deponents share two characteristics: (1) they were

identified as witnesses in Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures and (2) they signed declarations as

putative class members in support of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. At the Court’s

request, Chipotle submitted sample depositions questions to the Court and Plaintiff. Plaintiff has

submitted specific objections to Chipotle's proposed questions.

B. Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Proposed Discovery

Plaintiff contends this Court should not grant Chipotle leave to depose unnamed class

members because: (1) Chipotle has failed to show the necessity of such discovery, (2) Chipotle has

failed to show the relevance of such discovery, and (3) Chipotle's proposed deposition questions

are designed to confuse, mislead and discourage class participation. 

C. Is Discovery of Non-Class Plaintiffs Allowable?

Courts do not ordinarily permit discovery from absent class members. McPhail v. First

Command Fin. Planning, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 514, 517 (S.D.Cal. 2008); see also Fischer v.

Wolfinbarger, 55 F.R.D. 129, 132 (W.D.Ky.1971) (“It is not intended that members of the class

should be treated as if they were parties plaintiff, subject to the normal discovery procedures,

because if that were permitted, then the reason [behind Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure] would fail."). 

Although Courts do not usually allow discovery from absent class members, the rules

pertaining to such discovery are flexible, especially where the proposed deponents have been

identified as potential witnesses or have otherwise "injected" themselves into the litigation. See

Mas v. Cumulus Media Inc., 2010 WL 4916402, *3 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) and Moreno v.

Autozone 2007 WL 2288165, *1 (N.D.Cal. August 3, 2007) (citations omitted). Therefore, such

discovery may be taken even prior to certification where "the proponent of the deposition

demonstrates discovery is not sought to take undue advantage of class members or to harass class

members, and is necessary to the trial preparation (or in this instance for preparation of the

opposition to class certification).” Moreno, 2007 WL 2288165 at *1.

/////

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 2 of 15
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 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

C. Analysis

Chipotle seeks to depose absent class members that have submitted declarations in support

of Plaintiff's motion for class certification and whom Plaintiff has identified as witnesses in

Plaintiff's supplemental disclosures. Thus, the proposed deponents have injected themselves into

the litigation on two fronts and cannot claim noninvolvement as a means of avoiding discovery. In

addition, the court is satisfied Chipotle is not taking the proposed depositions in order “to take

undue advantage of class members or to harass class members.” Moreno, surpa, at *1.

Furthermore, the proposed discovery is clearly relevant to the claims and defenses in the instant

case and calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ . Proc. 26(b)(1). 

The Court notes that under certain circumstances depositions of absent class members

could have a chilling effect on their willingness to be part of the class. Tierno vs. Rite Aid, 2008

WL 2705089, *3, fn. 2 (N.D.Cal. July 8, 2008) (Italics added). However, that concern has little

impact in this case for several reasons. First, the proposed deponents are not employees of

Chipotle; rather, they are customers. Therefore, they are not under the pressure employees would

face being deposed by their employer. Chipotle cannot directly or impliedly threaten the putative

class members with loss or reduction of employment or some other adverse action affecting the

work environment. Indeed, a case can be made that Chipotle is more dependent on the putative

class members than they are dependent on Chipotle. In fact, part of Chipotle’s motivation is to

maintain or restore its corporate image with the demographic represented by the putative class

members. Second, an employer would have had ample opportunity to question the prospective

class member employees. However, in this case, the most effective way for Chipotle to question

these particular putative class members is by deposition. Third, because the non-employee

putative class members have submitted declarations in support of Plaintiff’s motion for class

certification, their expectation of noninvolvement in the litigation is significantly less than the

expectation of putative class members who have not affirmatively injected themselves into the

litigation. Fourth, each deposition is limited to one hour and is appropriately focused. 

Furthermore, Chipotle has submitted its proposed questions in advance to the Court, thereby

substantially reducing the likelihood of abuse. Please See Addendum A.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 3 of 15
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

- 4 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

The court finds the Mas and Moreno cases persuasive. Chipotle is allowed to take the

depositions of 20 of the potential class members who have submitted declarations in support of

plaintiffs motion for class certification with the following limitations:

a. Each deposition is limited to one hour actual running time. Colloquy between 

counsel does not count toward the one hour limitation.

b. Each deposition must be videotaped, unless the deposition proceeds by telephone,

in which case videotaping will not be necessary. Depositions by telephone must be

audiotaped.

c. Chipotle will bear the full cost of taking and videotaping and audiotaping the

depositions.

d. The depositions must be reasonably noticed. Notices of deposition must be

personally served on plaintiff’s counsel at least 10 days before any proposed

deposition, unless there is written agreement to shorten the time.

e. If one party believes the other party is acting inappropriately at the deposition, the

Court will review the videotapes and/or audiotapes of the contested depositions

after all the depositions have been completed. The Court will consider an award of

sanctions after the Court’s review of the depositions.

f. Chipotle can only depose those potential class members who have submitted

declarations in support of plaintiffs motion for class certification and who have

also been identified by Plaintiff as witnesses in his initial disclosures.

Should Chipotle be allowed to ask the deponents whether Ms. Vandeveld has instructed them not

to speak with Chipotle’s representatives?

There is no need for Chipotle to ask questions designed to, or which have the effect of,

invading the attorney-client or work product privileges that may obtain in order to discover the 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 4 of 15
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 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

information Chipotle represented to the Court it needs to oppose Plaintiff’s representations

regarding numerosity in Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Chipotle can accomplish his

goals without invading the privileges. Therefore, Chipotle needs to phrase its questions so as to

avoid invading these privileges.

Addendum A provides the Court’s rulings on the specific deposition questions Chipotle

seeks to ask.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2011

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 5 of 15
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

- 6 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

 Addendum A

Chipotle Objections Table

QUESTION OBJECTION RULING

VERACITY OF STATEMENTS

RE VISITS TO CHIPOTLE

Before learning that Plaintiffs in this

case were looking for people to sign

declarations, had you ever visited a

Chipotle restaurant?

None Does not apply

When did you first visit Chipotle? None Does not apply

Where? None Does not apply

Were you able to see your food

being prepared on that initial visit?

None Does not apply

Do you have a favorite order at

Chipotle that you usually get, or

does your order change from visit to

visit?

 This question is misleading since it

implies that there are "usual" orders. 

Orders are customized. It is also

irrelevant.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Have you ever placed a Chipotle

order by fax or online? 

This question is misleading since it

implies that access could have been

satisfied by fax or online orders. It

is also irrelevant because the issue

in this case is in-store ordering.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Which Chipotle restaurants have

you visited?

 

none Does not apply

 Were you able to see your

food prepared at any of those

locations?

None Does not apply

When was the last time you ordered

food at a Chipotle restaurant?

None Does not apply

Were you able to see your food

prepared on that most recent visit?

None Does not apply

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 6 of 15
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

- 7 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

What is your understanding of what

you meant when you said in your

declaration, “I would like the same

opportunity to see the food on

display and the preparation of my

order as is given to other Chipotle

customers who are able to stand and

who can see over the high walls”? 

ABUSIVE, MISLEADING,

CONFUSING, TAKES UNDUE

ADVANTAGE OF ABSENT

CLASS MEMBER. This is a

perfect example of how a question

can seem innocuous to attorneys,

but is misleading to lay witnesses.

The declarants, in signing their

declarations, simply attest to the

truth of the statements in the

declarations. The witnesses did not

draft the declarations but, no matter

how this question is answered, it is

likely that Mr. Sugden will use the

response against the witness, just as

he did with one deponent, Mr. Ott,

who Mr. Sugden accused of "lying

under oath" in Mr. Sugden's May 6,

2011 letter to Plaintiffs' counsel.

When Mr. Ott was asked if he had

written language in the declaration,

Mr. Ott, an unsophisticated lay

person, said yes, meaning that he

had provided the information

contained in the declaration. Mr.

Ott has is now being portrayed by

Mr. Sugden as claiming to have

drafted the actual pleading, when

Mr. Ott only meant to convey that

he written the information contained

in the declaration, not the

declaration itself. 

This question also suggests that

there is some other answer than the

obvious, which is confusing and

misleading.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

HOW WITNESS CAME TO

SIGN THE DECLARATION

What is your understanding of what

you meant when you said in your

declaration, “I could not see the

food on display or the preparation of

my entrees”?

ABUSIVE, MISLEADING,

CONFUSING, TAKES UNDUE

ADVANTAGE OF ABSENT

CLASS MEMBER, CALLS FOR A

LEGAL OPINION FROM LAY

WITNESS. See objections to

previous question

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 7 of 15
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

- 8 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

Other than any private conversations

between you and Ms. Vandeveld’s

office, were there any other ways

that you learned that this lawsuit

existed?

VIOLATES RIGHT OF

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION;

RIGHT OF PRIVACY. Seeks

information from unnamed class

members about private

conversations they may have

had with other class members,

which discourages participation

in the lawsuit. The answer to

this question is also

IRRELEVANT to any issue in the

case and can only have a chilling

affect on the unnamed class

members. What difference does

it make how the declarant

learned of the lawsuit, other than

to give Chipotle leads to other

class members that it can

investigate and interrogate?

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Other than any private conversations

between you and Ms. Vandeveld’s

office, were there any other ways

that you learned that the Plaintiffs in

this case were looking for people to

sign declarations for them?

VIOLATES RIGHT OF

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION;

RIGHT OF PRIVACY. Seeks

information from unnamed class

members about private

conversations they may have

had with other class members,

which discourages participation

in the lawsuit. The answer to

this question is also

IRRELEVANT to any issue in the

case and can only have a chilling

affect on the unnamed class

members. What difference does

it make how the declarant

learned of the lawsuit or the

request for declarations, other

than to give Chipotle leads to

other class members that it can

investigate and interrogate?

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 8 of 15
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

- 9 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

Reasonable follow-up, such as:

[If they learned through an Internet

posting] What do you remember

reading on the Internet about the

need for declarations in this case? 

VIOLATES RIGHT OF

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION;

RIGHT OF PRIVACY. Seeks

information from unnamed class

members about private

conversations they may have

had with other class members,

which discourages participation

in the lawsuit. The answer to

this question is irrelevant to any

issue in the case and can only

have a chilling affect on the

unnamed class members. What

difference does it make how the

declarant learned of the lawsuit

and/or the need for declarations,

other than to give Chipotle leads

to other class members that it

can investigate and interrogate?

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

[If they learned through a discussion

with a friend] What do you

remember about the discussion? 

Same objections as to previous

question.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

QUESTIONS RE SUBJECT

MATTER OF ONLINE

POSTINGS:

(privilege, if affected by the

witness’ answer, was waived as to

these subject matters) 

There is no waiver of a right to

privacy by someone anonymously

posting a communication online.

Sustained. There is no evidence of

waiver of any privilege.

Did anyone ever tell you that people

in wheelchairs cannot see their food

prepared at Chipotle restaurants? 

IRRELEVANT, ATTORNEYCLIENT PRIVILEGE/ATTORNEY

WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE

VIOLATION. VIOLATES RIGHT

OF FREEDOM OF

ASSOCIATION; RIGHT OF

PRIVACY. Seeks information

from unnamed class members

about private conversations they

may have had with other class

members, which discourages

participation in the lawsuit. The

answer to this question is

irrelevant to any issue in the

case and can only have a chilling

affect on the unnamed class

members. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 9 of 15
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

- 10 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

Reasonable follow-up, such as, who,

when, whether they referred to a

particular Chipotle location or

implied that persons in wheelchairs

cannot see the food preparation at

any Chipotle location. 

Same objections as to previous

question. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Did anyone ever tell you that

Chipotle customers in wheelchairs

see only the wall built in front of the

food preparation counters? 

Same objections as to previous

question. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Reasonable follow-up, such as, who,

when, whether they referred to a

particular Chipotle location or

implied that persons in wheelchairs

cannot see the food preparation at

any Chipotle location. 

Same objections as to previous

question. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Did anyone ever tell you that

“Chipotle has a similar design in all

its restaurants”? 

Same objections as to previous

question. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Reasonable follow-up, such as who,

when, any basis for thinking all

locations would be the same. 

Same objections as to previous

question. The answer to this

question is irrelevant to any issue in

this case.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Did anyone ever tell you that

Chipotle cares more about décor

than about people in wheelchairs? 

Same objections as to previous

question. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Reasonable follow-up, such as who,

when, what witness believed that to

mean.

Same objections as to previous

question. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 10 of 15
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

- 11 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

Did anyone ever tell you that the

lawsuit needs to be “certified” in

order to make Chipotle fix its

restaurants? (i.e., lower the wall at

its restaurants) 

IRRELEVANT, ATTORNEYCLIENT PRIVILEGE/ATTORNEY

WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE

VIOLATION, RIGHT TO

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION,

RIGHT TO PRIVACY, ABUSIVE,

MISLEADING,CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE

OF ABSENT CLASS MEMBER

LAY WITNESS. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Reasonable follow-up, such as who,

when, what witness believed that to

mean. 

Same objections as to previous

question. This is another witch hunt

into the identity of other class

members with whom the witness

may have privately discussed the

case. There is no purpose to this

questioning, other than to chill the

participation of class members,

since any answer to the question

will have no bearing on any issue in

this case.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Did anyone ever tell you that Amy

Vandeveld needs 50 declarations

from individuals in wheelchairs who

had visited Chipotle and were

unable to see their food being

prepared due to a high wall in front

of the food preparation counter? 

Same objections as to previous

question. This is another witch hunt

into the identity of other class

members with whom the witness

may have privately discussed the

case. There is no purpose to this

questioning, other than to chill the

participation of class members,

since any answer to the question

will have no bearing on any issue in

this case.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Reasonable follow-up, such as who,

when, what witness believed that to

mean. 

Same objections as to previous

question. This is another witch hunt

into the identity of other class

members with whom the witness

may have privately discussed the

case. There is no purpose to this

questioning, other than to chill the

participation of class members,

since any answer to the question

will have no bearing on any issue in

this case.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 11 of 15
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

- 12 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

Did anyone ever tell you addresses

for specific Chipotle stores to visit?

Same objections as to previous

question. This is another witch hunt

into the identity of other class

members with whom the witness

may have privately discussed the

case. There is no purpose to this

questioning, other than to chill the

participation of class members,

since any answer to the question

will have no bearing on any issue in

this case. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Reasonable follow-up, such as who,

when, which stores, and if witness

knows whether any other witnesses

were told to go to certain restaurant

locations.

Same objections as to previous

question. This is another witch hunt

into the identity of other class

members with whom the witness

may have privately discussed the

case. There is no purpose to this

questioning, other than to chill the

participation of class members,

since any answer to the question

will have no bearing on any issue in

this case.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Did you ever fill out a claim form

about your visits to Chipotle?

Same objections as to previous

question. This is another witch hunt

into the identity of other class

members with whom the witness

may have privately discussed the

case. There is no purpose to this

questioning, other than to chill the

participation of class members,

since any answer to the question

will have no bearing on any issue in

this case.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

 Reasonable follow-up, such as

when, why. Did you fill out a

claim form because it is important to

you to collect money damages? 

ATTORNEY-CLIENT

PRIVILEGE/ATTORNEY WORK

PRODUCT PRIVILEGE

VIOLATION, ABUSIVE,

MISLEADING,CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE

OF ABSENT CLASS MEMBER

LAY WITNESS, IRRELEVANT. 

Sustained in part to the extent the

qeustioning seeks any information

class counsel may have given the

witness as a potential client or in

attorney client consultation.

WITNESS’ UNDERSTANDING

OF THE PURPOSE OF THE

LAWSUIT

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 12 of 15
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

- 13 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

What is your understanding of the

purpose of this lawsuit?

MISLEADING, CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE

OF ABSENT CLASS MEMBER,

CALLS FOR A LEGAL OPINION

FROM LAY WITNESS,

IRRELEVANT. The witness'

understanding of the lawsuit has no

bearing on any issue in this case. If

the witness believed the purpose of

the lawsuit was to elect Mr. Sugden

president, that would not change the

number of people in wheelchairs in

California and the fact that high

walls at Chipotle's restaurants

denied those people equal access to

the Chipotle experience.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

At the time that you signed the

declaration, what was your

understanding of the purpose of this

lawsuit?

See previous objections. Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

If you knew that Chipotle had

already torn out all the higher walls

and built new, lower walls at all its

restaurants in California, would you

think that a class action lawsuit is

still necessary? 

MISLEADING, CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE

OF ABSENT CLASS MEMBER,

CALLS FOR A LEGAL OPINION

FROM LAY WITNESS. What

difference does this make? It calls

for information irrelevant to any

issue in this case and implies that

the witness may be participating in a

"frivolous" lawsuit, even though

Chipotle still contends its walls do

not violate the ADA. It is intended

to chill participation the suit and to

reduce claims.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

If Chipotle made a signed statement

to the court that it had removed all

the higher walls and that it would

keep the walls low, would you still

think that a class action lawsuit is

necessary? 

MISLEADING, CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF

ABSENT CLASS MEMBER,

CALLS FOR A LEGAL OPINION

FROM LAY WITNESS. See prior

objections, as well.

Sustained on the ground the

question is an inappropriate

hypothetical.

Do you have any reason to think

that Chipotle plans to again rip out

the walls and replace them with

higher walls?

MISLEADING, CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF

ABSENT CLASS MEMBER,

CALLS FOR A LEGAL OPINION

FROM LAY WITNESS. See prior

objections, as well. What a lay

witness thinks is irrelevant to

whether an injunction is necessary,

since Chipotle still contends the

walls do not violate the ADA.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 13 of 15
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

- 14 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

WITNESS’ UNDERSTANDING

OF THE PURPOSE OF THE

DECLARATION

When you signed the declaration,

did you think that the declaration

was necessary to help make

Chipotle lower the walls in front of

its food preparation counters? 

MISLEADING, CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF

ABSENT CLASS MEMBER,

CALLS FOR A LEGAL OPINION

FROM LAY WITNESS. See prior

objections, as well.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Did you sign the declaration

because you thought it was

important to be able to collect

money damages for yourself?

ABUSIVE, MISLEADING,

CONFUSING, TAKES UNDUE

ADVANTAGE OF ABSENT

CLASS MEMBER, CALLS FOR A

LEGAL OPINION FROM LAY

WITNESS because it implies that the

declaration had to be signed in order

for the class member to recover

damages. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

When you signed the declaration,

were you aware that the walls had

already been lowered at all

California Chipotle restaurants? 

MISLEADING, CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF

ABSENT CLASS MEMBER,

ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN

EVIDENCE. Irrelevant and

misleads the witness into thinking

that, even if the walls had been

lowered, there was no other basis for

the instant lawsuit.

Sustained; assumes facts not in

evidence.

If you had known, at the time you

signed the declaration, that

Chipotle had already lowered the

walls at all California Chipotle

restaurants, would you still have

signed the declaration? 

MISLEADING, CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF

ABSENT CLASS MEMBER,

ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN

EVIDENCE. Irrelevant and

misleads the witness into thinking

that, even if the walls had been

lowered, there was no other basis for

the instant lawsuit.

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Did you sign the declaration in

order to collect money?

VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS,

ABUSIVE, MISLEADING,

CONFUSING, TAKES UNDUE

ADVANTAGE OF ABSENT

CLASS MEMBER, CALLS FOR A

LEGAL OPINION FROM LAY

WITNESS. 

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 14 of 15
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

- 15 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

Were you given or promised

anything in return for signing the

declaration? 

VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS,

ABUSIVE, MISLEADING,

CONFUSING, TAKES UNDUE

ADVANTAGE OF ABSENT

CLASS MEMBER

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Did you expect anything in return

for signing the declaration? 

VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS,

ABUSIVE, MISLEADING,

CONFUSING, TAKES UNDUE

ADVANTAGE OF ABSENT

CLASS MEMBER, CALLS FOR A

LEGAL OPINION FROM LAY

WITNESS

Overruled. The question is relevant

and appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

When you signed the declaration,

was it your understanding that

Plaintiffs’ counsel was your

attorney?

MISLEADING, CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF

ABSENT CLASS MEMBER,

CALLS FOR A LEGAL OPINION

FROM LAY WITNESS. The

attorney-client privilege can apply to

communications even if a person has

not formally retained an attorney. 

Sustained; calls for a legal

conclusion by the witness and 

invades the attorney-client

relationship. In addition, the 

question is not relevant and does not

appear reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Do you currently believe that

Plaintiffs’ counsel is your attorney?

MISLEADING, CONFUSING,

TAKES UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF

ABSENT CLASS MEMBER,

CALLS FOR A LEGAL OPINION

FROM LAY WITNESS. The

attorney-client privilege can apply

to communications even if a

person has not formally retained

an attorney. 

Sustained; calls for a legal

conclusion by the witness and 

invades the attorney-client

relationship. In addition, the 

question is not relevant and does not

appear reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 118 Filed 05/23/11 Page 15 of 15