Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03680/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03680-1/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

CRAIG CRANDALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-03680-VKD 

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 

EXPERT SITE INSPECTION

Re: Dkt. No. 68

The Court having considered the arguments of the parties as reflected in the joint 

submission and as stated during the hearing on May 7, 2019, orders as follows:

Plaintiff Craig Crandall may have his expert conduct a further inspection of the Starbucks 

store that is the subject of this action. The inspection will be limited to the alleged violations 

stated in the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 48), and will be further limited to any changes to 

the store made in or after February 2019 that relate to those alleged violations. Counsel shall 

confer promptly to ensure that the further inspection is conducted at the earliest opportunity. Mr. 

Crandall’s counsel may accompany the expert on the inspection. If Mr. Crandall’s expert 

anticipates offering expert testimony about the alleged violations based on his further inspection of 

the store, he must serve a supplemental expert report on defendant Starbucks no later than seven 

days following completion of the further inspection.1 Starbucks indicates that it may seek leave of 

Court to serve a rebuttal to such supplemental expert report. If, after conferring, the parties agree 

that such leave is warranted, they may file a stipulation to that effect; if they disagree, they may 

 

1

If the supplemental expert report covers matters that Starbucks contends should have been 

included in the initial expert report, Starbucks may object to proposed expert testimony on that 

ground by filing a pretrial motion in limine.

Case 5:17-cv-03680-VKD Document 73 Filed 05/07/19 Page 1 of 2
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

submit the question to the Court for resolution using the Court’s discovery dispute procedures.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-03680-VKD Document 73 Filed 05/07/19 Page 2 of 2