United States District Court, C.D. California
KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Compel [Dkt. 22]
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.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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