Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGIE CHERRY and ESTORIA CHERRY,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO

(“City College”) LAWRENCE WONG, in his

official capacity as President of the Board of

Trustees, MILTON MARKS, III, in his official

capacity as Vice-President of the Board of

Trustees, DR. NATALIE BERG, JOHNNIE

CARTER, JR., DR. ANITA GRIER, JULIO J.

RAMOS, RODEL E. RODIS, in their official

capacities as members of the Board of

Trustees, and DR. PHILIP R. RAY, JR., in his

official capacity as Chancellor,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04981 WHA

FURTHER ORDER RE 

DEFENSE RESPONSE TO

LIST OF BARRIERS

To make sure there is no doubt as to what is required, defendants’ response to plaintiffs

list of barriers shall be organized as follows. Although plaintiffs’ list is long, we are so far in

the case now, defendants should be able to respond forthwith. As to each item, defendants shall

provide the following admissions or denials.

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 459 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Question # 1: As to each item on plaintiffs’ list, defendants must first state whether they admit

the physical noncompliant condition claimed exists, i.e., whether the actual condition complies

or not with ADAAG/UFAS on the assumption, solely for the sake of argument, that those

standards are applicable. State either “Admit” or “Deny.” Any admission will be completely

without prejudice to any defense argument that ADAAG/UFAS do not apply to any item or

group of items and the jury will be so advised.

Question # 2: The second question to be answered is the issue reserved above, namely whether

defendants admit that either ADAAG or UFAS apply to the item. State “Admit” or “Deny.” 

An admission on this point will be without prejudice to the further issue whether any such

violation necessarily means strict liability, an issue that will be separately determined as a

question of law. If it makes a difference, defendants can admit only as to ADAAG and deny as

to UFAS (or vice versa).

Question # 3: The third question to be answered is whether defendants admit that the item

alone or in conjunction with other items would deny class members access to services,

programs and activities were it not for defendants’ asserted programmatic cures. Any

admission here will be without prejudice to defendants’ contention that programmatic cures do

in fact provide the required access by class members and the jury will be so advised.

Question # 4: The fourth question to be answered is whether defendants admit that the item

alone or in conjunction with other items denies access by class members even taking into

account defendants’ programmatic cures. If this is denied defendants should state why the cure

is sufficient. These reasons can be briefly and separately stated in an appendix.

In short, the response to be provided by defendants will look like this, just taking limited

fictional responses:

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 459 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Question 

# 1

Question 

# 2

Question 

# 3

Question 

# 4

AIRPORT CAMPUS (ONE

BLDG)

* * *

Computer Room

Door—does not have accessible 

 operating hardware

Admit Deny Deny Deny—see

Reason 1

Electrical Lab

Door—inside strike-side clearance

 does not meet 12" as 

 required

Admit Deny Admit Deny—see

Reason 1

 —does not have accessible 

 operating hardware

Admit Admit Admit Deny—see

Reason 2

And so on . . . .

Please do not “deny” for lack of information and belief. So much investigation and time

have gone into this case that counsel should now be able to admit or deny as to each item and

question. On the assumption that counsel will respond in good faith, this order extends the time

for defendants’ response to DECEMBER 23 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 459 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 3