Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685-30/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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IVANA KIROLA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 07-03685 SBA 

ORDER

[Docket No. 291] 

Currently before the Court is Defendant the City and County of San Francisco's (“the 

City’s”) Administrative Motion to Authorize Rebuttal Expert Disclosure. (Docket No. 291.) 

The case management schedule in this case provided that initial expert reports were due 

on December 11, 2009, and rebuttal reports were due on February 16, 2010. The parties 

exchanged their initial expert reports on December 11, 2009. After that exchange, plaintiffs 

noticed site inspections at an additional 138 sites. Those site inspections were due to occur 

during the months of January and February 2010. On January 24, 2010, defendants moved 

Magistrate Judge Chen for a protective order to prevent those additional inspections. On 

January 29, 2010, Judge Chen ordered that plaintiffs were allowed to inspect 78 of the 

additional 138 sites, on the basis that these site inspections were proper subject matter for 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 347 Filed 07/22/10 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 

plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert reports. Plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert reports, served on February 16, 

2010, included access analyses of 65 additional facilities. 

On June 15, 2010, the City served plaintiffs with rebuttal expert disclosures, presenting 

analyses of 50 of the 65 facilities included in plaintiffs’ February 16, 2010 reports. On June 

21, 2010, the City filed the instant Administrative Motion to Authorize Rebuttal Expert 

Disclosure, seeking authorization for its June 15, 2010 disclosure. Finding good cause shown, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the City’s Administrative Motion to Authorize 

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure is GRANTED.1

This Order terminates Docket No. 291. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

 1 Should plaintiffs decide to withdraw their February 16, 2010 reports, the City’s June 

15, 2010 disclosures would then no longer be relevant. 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 347 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2