Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02671/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02671-7/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 IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART CHIPOTLE’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR

PRODUCTION NO. 12

vs.

CHIPOTLE, INC,, et al.,

Defendant.

The general issue before this Court is whether Mr. Antoninetti, the class plaintiff, is an

appropriate class representative given his past and present business relationship with class counsel,

Ms. Amy Vandeveld, and the brother of class counsel, Mr. Tom Vandeveld, also an attorney. The

issue has been presented to the Court in the form of a motion to compel a supplemental answer to

Defendant Chipotle’s request for production number 12. That request for production seeks "all

Documents that evidence, discuss, mention, refer to, reflect or Relate to the amount of income You

receive annually as a result of Your participation in lawsuits involving state or federal disability laws

as an expert." Chipotle contends this information is discoverable because it bears on the adequacy of

Mr. Antoninetti as the class plaintiff. Mr. Antoninetti contends this request offends his privacy rights

and is also overbroad and burdensome.

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.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 99 Filed 04/21/11 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

- 2 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) requires “the representative parties will fairly and

adequately protect the interests of the class.” Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)

allows “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

defense – including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any

documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any

discoverable matter.” Today, this Court is not tasked with determining whether Mr. Antoninetti is

an adequate class representative; District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz will ultimately make that

determination. Rather, this Court will only decide whether Chipotle is entitled to a supplemental

response to its request for production number 12 in an attempt to determine the adequacy of Mr.

Antoninetti as a class representative.

ANALYSIS

One of the key cases dealing with determining the adequacy of a class plaintiff is the

Sipper case. Sipper v. Capital One Bank, 2002 WL 398769 (C.D. Cal. 2002). In Sipper, there

were two motions before the court. Id. at 1. The plaintiff, the class representative, brought a

motion to certify the class. Id. Defendant Capital One opposed the motion for class certification,

bringing its own motion to deny the class on the primary ground of allegedly inadequate

representation by the class representative and class counsel. Id. at 2. Central to Capital One’s

theory was the business relationship between class representative Ed Sipper and class counsel

Barry Kramer. Id. at 2. 

Sipper has come to stand for the following principle: “The existence of a business

relationship does not automatically preclude class representation.” Id. at 3 (citing Macarz vs.

Transworld Systems, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 46, 52 (D. Conn. 2000)(where the court refused to deny

class certification based solely on relationship without indication of collaboration to generate

fees)(emphasis in original)). Four factors influenced the court in Sipper in determining the class

plaintiff was not an adequate representative of class because of his business relationship with class

counsel. Sipper, at 3. First, Sipper and Kramer “are business partners in a series of real estate

deals.” Id. Second, “according to Sipper, he depends on Kramer for his involvement in these

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 99 Filed 04/21/11 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

1

. Deposition of Mr. Antoninetti taken October 4, 2006, pg. 125 [Exhibit 2 to Chipotle’s

moving papers.]

2 Id. at 281.

3 Id. at 124.

4 Id. at 132.

- 3 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

deals because Kramer supplies the money.” Id. Third, “not only are Kramer and Sipper business

partners, they have been joint defendants in a California lawsuit.” Id. Fourth, “neither Kramer nor

Sipper felt the need to disclose this relationship to the court, his other clients in these matters, or

Kramer’s co-counsel . . . In previous deposition testimony and interrogatories Sipper danced

around questions that would have required revealing his relationship with Kramer. Nor has

Kramer come forward with this information on his own. Why?” Id. 

The Sipper court went on to say: 

In sum, the court emphatically disagrees with counsel’s relevance argument and is

surprised by class counsel’s attitude toward a matter of such importance. A central concern

of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing class actions is ensuring that the class action

format is not hijacked by parties or attorneys to their own ends at the expense of the other

class members. Of particular concern, “courts fear that a class representative who is

closely associated with the class attorney would allow settlement on terms less favorable to

the interest of absent class members.” 

Id. at 4 (citing Susman vs. Lincoln American Corp., 561 F.2d 86, 91 (7th Cir. 1977).

Back to the instant case, Mr. Antoninetti has earned income from an extensive, long-term

business relationship with class counsel. Mr. Antoninetti has testified in this case to having 

worked as an expert or consultant with class counsel in ADA matters approximately 50 times.1

 In

that capacity, he charged $120 per hour.2

 He has a similar, though less extensive, relationship with

the second class counsel.3 Mr. Antoninetti worked as an expert with class counsel before the

instant lawsuit was filed. He does not currently have any cases with class counsel in which he is

serving as a consultant or expert witness. In addition, he may or may not undertake such work

with class counsel when the current case has concluded.4

 

Contrary to Sipper, Mr. Antoninetti is not an attorney and has not served as co-counsel

with either class counsel. However, the inquiry into the business relationship between the class

representative and class counsel is not limited to those situations where the class representative is

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 99 Filed 04/21/11 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

- 4 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

also an attorney. The relevant inquiry is whether the business relationship between the class

representative and class counsel compromises the ability or willingness of the class representative

to faithfully advocate for the interests of the class. Under Sipper, Chipotle has established

sufficient basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) to conduct additional discovery

into the past and present business relationship between Mr. Antoninetti and class counsel in

support of its claim that Mr. Antoninetti is not an appropriate class representative. 

Notwithstanding the above, Chipotle’s request for production number 12 is overbroad, as it

is unlimited as to time and seeks information not relevant to the business or other relationship

between Mr. Antoninetti and class counsel. However, despite its overbreadth, the request does

seek documents relevant to a determination of Mr. Antoninetti’s adequacy as a class

representative. Therefore, some discovery on this subject is warranted. Mr. Antoninetti must 

produce documents showing any and all income he has received from his work as an expert

or consultant for both class counsel for the period January 1, 1998 through December 6,

2006, the date the subject complaint was filed. 

With respect to Defendant’s request for copies of Mr. Antoninetti’s tax returns, there is no

special privilege related to tax returns in federal court. Rather, Rule 26 governs the issue of

discoverability and relevance is the appropriate standard. See Heathman vs. United States District

Court for the Central District of California, 503 F.2d 1032,1035 (9th Cir. 1974). Here, because

Chipotle has not shown Mr. Antoninetti’s tax returns are relevant or likely to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence, his tax returns are not discoverable. Chipotle’s request is overbroad

because Mr. Antoninetti’s tax returns will undoubtedly show income received from a variety of

other sources not at all relevant to this litigation, as well as deductions, property owned, etc.

Finally, Counsel should not interpret, or read into this ruling, any suggestion that this court

believes class counsel and the class representative have colluded or failed to vigorously assert and

protect the interests of the class. Indeed, class counsel and the class representative have

vigorously represented the interests of the class.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 21, 2011

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 99 Filed 04/21/11 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 - 06cv2671-BTM (WMc)

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 99 Filed 04/21/11 Page 5 of 5