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

1 The list identifies as entry barriers the height of a tow-away sign,

that it has no phone number, its color, etc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEL TACO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. S-04-2154 GEB PAN 

ORDER

—NFN—

In paragraph 19 of his complaint plaintiff avers that a

document attached as Exhibit A is a list of the barriers that

denied him access to defendant restaurant and which he seeks to

remove. When defendant requested the identity of the person or

persons who prepared the list,1 plaintiff asserted work product

privilege and defendant moves to compel.

Defendant’s motion is granted for three reasons. First,

plaintiff’s counsel refused to participate in the conference

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 33 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 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

2

required by Local Rule 37-251(b) and pursuant to Local Rule 37-

251(d) the court exercises its discretion in this case to make an

order adverse to plaintiff because plaintiff’s counsel has not

even bothered to offer an excuse for the refusal. Second, as

defendant points out in the moving papers, the federal rules

plainly treat the person who prepared the list not as an expert

but as a fact witness. See Advisory Committee Notes, 1970

amendments, subdivision (b)(4)--trial preparation, experts. 

Third, even if the list were treated as a report of a nontestifying expert within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(4)(B), plaintiff unequivocally waived any privilege or

protection by attaching the list to the complaint. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), I find that

plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was unjustified and that

defendant is entitled to its attorney fees and costs incurred in

connection with the motion.

So ordered.

Dated: August 4, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 33 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2