Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lopez v. Sanchez

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 7, 2017

Daniel Lopez
v.
Florentino Sanchez, et al.

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

          KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Proceedings: Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Compel [Dkt. 22]

         I.

         SUMMARY OF RULING

         On February 2, 2017, Defendants Florentino Sanchez, Cecilia Sanchez, and Casa Delicias, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Further Responses to Interrogatories (“Motion to Compel”) and a Joint Stipulation. Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff Daniel Lopez (“Plaintiff”) to (1) produce all documents in response to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9; and (2) respond to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, and 13 through 18. Defendants also request an award of attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $4, 800.00 and sanctions in the amount of $5, 000.00. For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) DENIES Defendants' Motion to Compel, and (2) DENIES Defendants' request for attorney's fees and costs, and request for sanctions.

         II.

         RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On July 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants for damages and injunctive relief for violations of the (1) Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); and (2) the UNRUH Civil Rights Act (“UNRUH”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. Plaintiff, who is a paraplegic and who uses a wheelchair for mobility, alleges he visited Defendants' restaurant in April 2015. Id. ¶¶ 1, 10. Plaintiff further alleges Defendants' restaurant did not have accessible parking spaces reserved for persons with disabilities and the transaction counter did not have a lowered portion for use by persons in wheelchairs. Id. Plaintiff alleges he “will return to patronize the Restaurant as a customer once the barriers are removed.” Id. ¶ 24. On August 30, 2016, Defendants filed an Answer. Dkt. 12.

         On November 4, 2016, Defendants served Requests for Production and Interrogatories. Dkt. 22-1 at 1-82, Declaration of Yolanda Flores-Burt in support of Motion to Compel (“Flores-Burt Decl.”), ¶ 2. On December 5, 2016, Plaintiff served responses to Defendants' Requests for Production and Interrogatories. Id. at 83-188, Declaration of Sara Gunderson in support of Opposition to Motion to Compel (“Gunderson Decl.”), ¶ 2.

         On December 15, 2016, Defendants' counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff's counsel requesting supplemental responses. Flores-Burt Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A. On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff provided supplemental responses. Id. ¶ 5, Ex. B.

         On December 27, 2016, Defendants' counsel sent a second letter to Plaintiff's counsel requesting supplemental responses. Id., Ex. C. On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff served additional supplemental responses along with a letter responding to the concerns set forth in Defendants' counsel's December 27, 2016 letter. Id. ¶ 6, Ex. D.

         On January 11, 2017, Defendants' counsel sent a third letter to Plaintiff's counsel (a) responding to Plaintiff's counsel's January 3, 2017 letter; (b) suggesting a Joint Stipulation for Protective Order; and (c) requesting supplemental responses. Id., Ex. E. On January 12, 2017, Defendants' counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a letter responding to Plaintiff's counsel's January 11, 2017 letter, declining to provide further supplemental responses, and declining to enter into Defendants' proposed stipulated protective order. Id., Ex. F.

         On February 2, 2017, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel and Joint Stipulation. Dkt. 22. Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Compel is set forth in the Joint ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.