1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, et al., Case No.: 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 [Dkt. No. 243] 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery 19 (the “Motion”). Dkt. No. 243. The Court has considered the parties’ moving 20 papers, the applicable law, and the arguments of counsel during the January 9, 21 2023, hearing on the Motion. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is 22 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 23 I. 25 Plaintiffs are individuals who are or have been incarcerated at jails in San 26 Diego County. See generally Dkt. No. 231 (the “Third Amended Complaint” or 27 “TAC”). For themselves and on behalf of a putative class of incarcerated persons, 28 they challenge the “extraordinarily dangerous and deadly conditions” at those jails 1 with respect to the provision of medical, dental and mental health care and, as is 2 relevant here, to the accessibility of jail facilities, programs and services for 3 persons with disabilities. See generally id. The District Court denied Plaintiffs’ 4 previous motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 203. Subsequently, the 5 District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend, and 6 the undersigned accordingly denied Plaintiffs’ then-pending motion for expedited 7 discovery as moot. Dkt. Nos. 219, 221. 8 On November 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the TAC. Dkt. No. 231. Defendants’ 9 motion to dismiss the TAC remains pending. See Dkt. No. 247. To “evaluate the 10 need for and scope of a potential renewed motion for preliminary injunction,” 11 Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion seeking discovery “about the Jail’s current ADA 12 polices and practices.” Dkt. No. 234-1 at 3. As stated in the Motion, Plaintiffs 13 “seek permission” to propound 35 document requests (“RFPs”), conduct “ADA 14 expert inspections” at five jails, and depose a Rule 30(b)(6) designee on the issues 15 of ADA compliance and accessibility.1 Id. 16 Defendants oppose the Motion. Dkt. No. 245. Defendants assert that as set 17 forth in plaintiffs’ discovery requests, the discovery is overbroad in scope in that it 18 seeks information that is not necessary to a pending or even potential motion for 19 a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 245 at 5-10. Defendants further assert that 20 responding to Plaintiffs’ overbroad discovery would present an “enormous burden.” 21 Id. at 11. Defendants agree that “in princip[le],” “appropriately narrow” pre-answer 22 / / / 23
24 25 1 Plaintiffs did not attach their proposed discovery to the Motion. See Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1086, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (noting 26 that “[w]ithout a copy of the proposed discovery requests, the Court cannot 27 determine whether the requests are narrowly tailored”). However, the proposed 35 RFPs, notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and requests for inspection of five jail 28 1 discovery could proceed but assert that Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery “exceed[s] . 2 . . the bounds” of what is “proper” at this stage of the proceedings. Id. at 5. 3 On January 9, 2023, the Court held oral argument on the Motion. In advance 4 of the hearing, the Court advised counsel for the parties of its tentative ruling to 5 permit expedited discovery but to limit the scope of that discovery significantly 6 compared to Plaintiffs’ proposal. Plaintiffs’ counsel lodged revised discovery 7 requests (consisting of 13 RFPs, a notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and request 8 for inspection of five jail facilities) with the undersigned’s chambers at the close of 9 business on January 6, 2023. Plaintiffs’ revised discovery requests were the focus 10 of the Court’s and counsel’s discussion at the hearing. 11 II. 13 The Court may authorize expedited discovery on a showing of good cause. 14 See Synopsys, Inc. v. AzurEngine Techs., Inc., 401 F.Supp.3d 1068, 1076 (S.D. 15 Cal. 2019) (citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (providing that the 16 court can order discovery to proceed before the parties have conferred as required 17 by Rule 26(f)). Good cause is often established in cases where a preliminary 18 injunction is or may be sought. See Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 19 1063, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2009); see also Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage PTE, Ltd., 20 No. C 09-05812 JW PVT, 2010 WL 143665, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2010) (finding 21 good cause to permit expedited discovery to allow a litigant “to determine whether 22 to seek an early injunction.”). However, the court should not authorize discovery 23 that is “ʻnot narrowly tailored to obtain information relevant to [the] determination’” 24 of whether an injunction should issue. Am. LegalNet, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 1067 25 (citation omitted). As in all cases, a court faced with a request for expedited 26 discovery has both the discretion and the obligation “ʻto prevent excessive or 27 burdensome discovery.’” Id. (quoting Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc. v. WorldQuest 28 Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D. Colo. 2003)); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 1 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting the Court’s “broad discretion” to “permit 2 or deny discovery”). 5 The Court appreciates that Plaintiffs have made serious allegations of 6 Defendants’ widespread and “systemic” failures to provide appropriate 7 accommodations to persons with disabilities. Dkt. No. 243-1. Reasonably limited 8 discovery “focused on emergency situations created by existing physical barriers, 9 policies, practices or programs” would enable Plaintiffs to pursue prompt 10 remediation of any such failures. Dkt. No. 245 at 3. The Court therefore finds that 11 Plaintiffs have established good cause for limited expedited discovery. However, 12 the Court agrees with Defendants that the discovery Plaintiffs seek permission to 13 propound is not confined to information relevant to the issuance of an injunction, 14 even after Plaintiffs’ attempt to narrow it. 15 In considering a request for expedited discovery, one factor the Court must 16 consider is “the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery.” Am. LegalNet, 17 673 F.Supp.2d at 1063. Plaintiffs state that the purpose of the requested discovery 18 is to allow them to “evaluate the need for and scope of a potential renewed motion 19 for preliminary injunction” regarding Defendants’ alleged “ongoing ADA and 20 Rehab[ilitation] Act violations,” and to “provide better factual information” to the 21 Court in hearing any such motion. Dkt. No. 243-1 at 3, 5, 9. The seven named 22 Plaintiffs, who suffer from mobility and hearing disabilities, report being unable to 23 access facilities, services, and medical care and appear for court proceedings due 24 to a lack of accommodations. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs also anecdotally report that the 25 elevator at Central Jail has been in a perpetual state of disrepair. Id. at 8. And 26 Plaintiffs represent that their ADA expert is “very skeptical” that the Rock Mountain 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 jail facility “will be ADA-compliant . . . based on the site accessibility information 2 available to her.”2 Id. at 7. 3 Bearing this in mind, the Court finds that expedited discovery to allow 4 Plaintiffs to move for a court order requiring Defendants to comply with the ADA 5 must be limited to current policies, procedures and conditions regarding 6 accessibility and accommodations for incarcerated persons with mobility and 7 hearing disabilities at Central Jail and at the Rock Mountain jail facilities. While 8 discovery within this scope will be permitted, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ 9 proposed discovery exceeds it.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, et al., Case No.: 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 [Dkt. No. 243] 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery 19 (the “Motion”). Dkt. No. 243. The Court has considered the parties’ moving 20 papers, the applicable law, and the arguments of counsel during the January 9, 21 2023, hearing on the Motion. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is 22 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 23 I. 25 Plaintiffs are individuals who are or have been incarcerated at jails in San 26 Diego County. See generally Dkt. No. 231 (the “Third Amended Complaint” or 27 “TAC”). For themselves and on behalf of a putative class of incarcerated persons, 28 they challenge the “extraordinarily dangerous and deadly conditions” at those jails 1 with respect to the provision of medical, dental and mental health care and, as is 2 relevant here, to the accessibility of jail facilities, programs and services for 3 persons with disabilities. See generally id. The District Court denied Plaintiffs’ 4 previous motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 203. Subsequently, the 5 District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend, and 6 the undersigned accordingly denied Plaintiffs’ then-pending motion for expedited 7 discovery as moot. Dkt. Nos. 219, 221. 8 On November 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the TAC. Dkt. No. 231. Defendants’ 9 motion to dismiss the TAC remains pending. See Dkt. No. 247. To “evaluate the 10 need for and scope of a potential renewed motion for preliminary injunction,” 11 Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion seeking discovery “about the Jail’s current ADA 12 polices and practices.” Dkt. No. 234-1 at 3. As stated in the Motion, Plaintiffs 13 “seek permission” to propound 35 document requests (“RFPs”), conduct “ADA 14 expert inspections” at five jails, and depose a Rule 30(b)(6) designee on the issues 15 of ADA compliance and accessibility.1 Id. 16 Defendants oppose the Motion. Dkt. No. 245. Defendants assert that as set 17 forth in plaintiffs’ discovery requests, the discovery is overbroad in scope in that it 18 seeks information that is not necessary to a pending or even potential motion for 19 a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 245 at 5-10. Defendants further assert that 20 responding to Plaintiffs’ overbroad discovery would present an “enormous burden.” 21 Id. at 11. Defendants agree that “in princip[le],” “appropriately narrow” pre-answer 22 / / / 23
24 25 1 Plaintiffs did not attach their proposed discovery to the Motion. See Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1086, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (noting 26 that “[w]ithout a copy of the proposed discovery requests, the Court cannot 27 determine whether the requests are narrowly tailored”). However, the proposed 35 RFPs, notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and requests for inspection of five jail 28 1 discovery could proceed but assert that Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery “exceed[s] . 2 . . the bounds” of what is “proper” at this stage of the proceedings. Id. at 5. 3 On January 9, 2023, the Court held oral argument on the Motion. In advance 4 of the hearing, the Court advised counsel for the parties of its tentative ruling to 5 permit expedited discovery but to limit the scope of that discovery significantly 6 compared to Plaintiffs’ proposal. Plaintiffs’ counsel lodged revised discovery 7 requests (consisting of 13 RFPs, a notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and request 8 for inspection of five jail facilities) with the undersigned’s chambers at the close of 9 business on January 6, 2023. Plaintiffs’ revised discovery requests were the focus 10 of the Court’s and counsel’s discussion at the hearing. 11 II. 13 The Court may authorize expedited discovery on a showing of good cause. 14 See Synopsys, Inc. v. AzurEngine Techs., Inc., 401 F.Supp.3d 1068, 1076 (S.D. 15 Cal. 2019) (citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (providing that the 16 court can order discovery to proceed before the parties have conferred as required 17 by Rule 26(f)). Good cause is often established in cases where a preliminary 18 injunction is or may be sought. See Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 19 1063, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2009); see also Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage PTE, Ltd., 20 No. C 09-05812 JW PVT, 2010 WL 143665, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2010) (finding 21 good cause to permit expedited discovery to allow a litigant “to determine whether 22 to seek an early injunction.”). However, the court should not authorize discovery 23 that is “ʻnot narrowly tailored to obtain information relevant to [the] determination’” 24 of whether an injunction should issue. Am. LegalNet, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 1067 25 (citation omitted). As in all cases, a court faced with a request for expedited 26 discovery has both the discretion and the obligation “ʻto prevent excessive or 27 burdensome discovery.’” Id. (quoting Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc. v. WorldQuest 28 Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D. Colo. 2003)); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 1 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting the Court’s “broad discretion” to “permit 2 or deny discovery”). 5 The Court appreciates that Plaintiffs have made serious allegations of 6 Defendants’ widespread and “systemic” failures to provide appropriate 7 accommodations to persons with disabilities. Dkt. No. 243-1. Reasonably limited 8 discovery “focused on emergency situations created by existing physical barriers, 9 policies, practices or programs” would enable Plaintiffs to pursue prompt 10 remediation of any such failures. Dkt. No. 245 at 3. The Court therefore finds that 11 Plaintiffs have established good cause for limited expedited discovery. However, 12 the Court agrees with Defendants that the discovery Plaintiffs seek permission to 13 propound is not confined to information relevant to the issuance of an injunction, 14 even after Plaintiffs’ attempt to narrow it. 15 In considering a request for expedited discovery, one factor the Court must 16 consider is “the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery.” Am. LegalNet, 17 673 F.Supp.2d at 1063. Plaintiffs state that the purpose of the requested discovery 18 is to allow them to “evaluate the need for and scope of a potential renewed motion 19 for preliminary injunction” regarding Defendants’ alleged “ongoing ADA and 20 Rehab[ilitation] Act violations,” and to “provide better factual information” to the 21 Court in hearing any such motion. Dkt. No. 243-1 at 3, 5, 9. The seven named 22 Plaintiffs, who suffer from mobility and hearing disabilities, report being unable to 23 access facilities, services, and medical care and appear for court proceedings due 24 to a lack of accommodations. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs also anecdotally report that the 25 elevator at Central Jail has been in a perpetual state of disrepair. Id. at 8. And 26 Plaintiffs represent that their ADA expert is “very skeptical” that the Rock Mountain 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 jail facility “will be ADA-compliant . . . based on the site accessibility information 2 available to her.”2 Id. at 7. 3 Bearing this in mind, the Court finds that expedited discovery to allow 4 Plaintiffs to move for a court order requiring Defendants to comply with the ADA 5 must be limited to current policies, procedures and conditions regarding 6 accessibility and accommodations for incarcerated persons with mobility and 7 hearing disabilities at Central Jail and at the Rock Mountain jail facilities. While 8 discovery within this scope will be permitted, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ 9 proposed discovery exceeds it. The Court accordingly GRANTS IN PART and 10 DENIES IN PART the request for expedited discovery. 11 It is not the Court’s responsibility to “rewrite” discovery for the parties. See 12 Kellgren v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-644-L(KSC), 2017 WL 13 979045, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017) (citation omitted). However, to maximize 14 efficiency and minimize disputes, the Court has done so here. Attached to this 15 Order are ten RFPs and a notice of deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) that the 16 Court finds appropriately tailored to Plaintiffs’ needs. These RFPs and deposition 17 notice shall be deemed served upon Defendants as of the date of this Order. By 18 agreement of the parties, documents responsive to the RFPs shall be produced 19 within 40 days of the date of this Order. See Dkt. No. 257 at 3. The deposition 20 shall commence within 60 days of the date of this Order on a date mutually agreed 21 to by the parties. See id. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25
26 27 2 According to defendants, the Rock Mountain jail facility, which has yet to open, will be “completely ADA compliant” and will house incarcerated individuals 28 1 Regarding inspections of Defendants’ jail facilities, the parties have agreed, 2 and the Court hereby ORDERS that: 3 Not later than 30 days after Defendants produce documents responsive to 4 Plaintiffs’ RFPs (as set forth in Exhibit A to this Order), Plaintiffs’ counsel and 5 expert shall be allowed to inspect Central Jail. The inspection will occur on a 6 mutually agreeable date no later than March 10, 2023. Defendants will provide 7 Plaintiffs’ counsel with a map or floor plan of the Central Jail at least 10 days before 8 the inspection. Defendants will also provide Plaintiffs’ counsel a current roster of 9 incarcerated persons with mobility and hearing disabilities listed along with their 10 location within the jail (but with their identifying information redacted) before the 11 inspection. 12 Plaintiffs’ counsel and their expert shall also be allowed to inspect the Rock 13 Mountain jail facility on February 10, 2023. Defendants will provide Plaintiffs’ 14 counsel with a map or floor plan of the Rock Mountain facility at least 10 days 15 before the inspection. 16 If additional dates are needed to complete the inspection of either or both 17 facilities, the parties agree to schedule these on mutually agreeable dates. 18 As discussed on the record at the January 9 hearing, Plaintiffs will not 19 interview detainees or employees during either inspection. However, Defendants’ 20 counsel will facilitate the provision of information to Plaintiffs’ counsel and expert 21 during the inspections. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IV. 3 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Limited 4 || Expedited Discovery [Dkt. No. 243] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 5 || IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: January 17, 2023 ait Ctl edb ° Hon. David. Leshner 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, et al., Case No.: 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL
12 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF 13 v. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANTS DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
18 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFFS 19 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANTS SAN DIEGO 20 COUNTY SHERIFF’S 21 DEPARTMENT AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 22 23 SET NO.: ONE 24 25 26 27 28 1 The following definitions shall apply to these requests for production: 2 1. The terms “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to the County of San Diego and 3 anyone acting on its behalf, including the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. 4 2. The terms “MOBILITY DISABILITY” and “MOBILITY DISABILITIES” 5 mean any mobility impairment that limits one or more major life activities, including 6 limiting the ability to stand, walk, climb stairs, or use one’s upper extremities. 7 3. The terms “DISABILITY” and “DISABILITIES” includes MOBILITY 8 DISABILITIES and any hearing impairment that limits one or more major life 9 activities. 10 4. The term “DOCUMENT” means any log, report, memoranda, or 11 assessment. 12 5. The term “INCARCERATED PERSON(S)” means any person 13 incarcerated, detained or in custody at the San Diego Central Jail or who will be 14 incarcerated, detained or in custody at the Rock Mountain jail facility. 15 6. The terms “POLICIES” and “PROCEDURES” mean policies, 16 procedures, handbooks, advice, directives, training materials, forms, instructions, 17 and guidelines that comprise established standards, regardless of the author. 18 7. The term “CURRENT” means in effect and not superseded and/or 19 issued on or after January 1, 2021. 20 8. The term “REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS” means any 21 modification to any POLICIES, PROCEDURES, or practices to afford goods, 22 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 3 All CURRENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES and DOCUMENTS relating to 4 physical accessibility of facilities, housing, programs, services, activities, and 5 assistive devices for INCARCERATED PERSONS with DISABILITIES, including 6 but not limited to the accessibility of telephones, tablets, elevators, yard, exercise 7 equipment, religious services, substance abuse programs, educational programs, 8 and job training programs. 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 10 All CURRENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES, DOCUMENTS, repair receipts 11 and grievance responses relating to the functionality, testing, maintenance, and 12 repair of elevators at the San Diego Central Jail. 13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 14 All CURRENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES, and grievance responses 15 relating to the availability, provision, maintenance, and repair of assistive devices 16 (including but not limited to wheelchairs, walkers, canes, crutches, prosthetics, and 17 hearing aids) for INCARCERATED PERSONS with DISABILITIES. 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 19 All CURRENT POLICIES and PROCEDURES relating to identifying and 20 tracking INCARCERATED PERSONS with DISABILITIES. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 22 All physical, structural, and design plans for the Rock Mountain jail facility, 23 including plans relating to accommodations for INCARCERATED PERSONS with 24 DISABILITIES and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 26 All CURRENT DOCUMENTS relating to the accessibility of housing units 27 utilized by INCARCERATED PERSONS with DISABILITIES, including but not 28 limited to the accessibility of beds, desks, toilets, showers, and lavatories, in cells 1 or within sanitary facilities, and drinking fountains, tables, utility sinks, and 2 telephones in the day room. 3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 4 All CURRENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES, and DOCUMENTS relating to 5 evacuation plans for INCARCERATED PERSONS with DISABILITIES, including 6 but not limited to documentation of evacuation drills and egress routes maintained 7 as accessible. 8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 9 All CURRENT DOCUMENTS and grievance responses relating to 10 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS requested, offered, and/or provided to 11 INCARCERATED PERSONS with DISABILITIES. 12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 13 All CURRENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES and DOCUMENTS relating to 14 plans to house INCARCERATED PERSONS who use wheelchairs at the Rock 15 Mountain jail facility. 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 17 All CURRENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES, and DOCUMENTS relating to 18 Quality Assurance and/or Quality Improvement processes related to 19 accommodating INCARCERATED PERSONS with DISABILITIES. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, et al., Case No.: 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL
12 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF 13 v. DEPOSITION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6) Defendants. 16
18 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 19 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rules 26 and 30 of the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Darryl Dunsmore, Andree Andrade, Ernest 21 Archuleta, James Clark, Anthony Edwards, Lisa Landers, Reanna Levy, Josue 22 Lopez, Christopher Nelson, Christopher Norwood, Jesse Olivares, Gustavo 23 Sepulveda, Michael Taylor, and Laura Zoerner (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of 24 themselves and all persons similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, will 25 take the deposition of Defendant San Diego County Sheriff’s Department 26 (“Sheriff’s Department”) regarding the topic for examination stated below. 27 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), the Sheriff’s 28 Department must designate one or more of their officers, directors, partners, 1 managing agents, or other such persons to testify on their behalf as to all matters 2 known or reasonably available to the Sheriff’s Department on the topic for 3 examination stated below. 4 The deposition will commence on a date mutually agreed to by the parties 5 and in compliance with the deadlines set in the accompanying Order, and will 6 continue from day-to-day, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, until 7 completed. The deposition will take place at the offices of DLA Piper LLP, 401 B 8 St., 17th Floor, San Diego, California 92101. The deposition will be taken before 9 a notary public authorized to administer oaths and shall be recorded by 10 stenographic means and may also be videotaped. 12 1. The terms “MOBILITY DISABILITY” and “MOBILITY DISABILITIES” 13 mean ANY mobility impairment that limits one or more major life activities, 14 including limiting the ability to stand, walk, climb stairs, or use one’s upper 15 extremities. 16 2. The terms “DISABILITY” and “DISABILITIES” includes MOBILITY 17 DISABILITIES and any hearing impairment that limits one or more major life 18 activities. 19 3. The term “INCARCERATED PERSON(S)” means any person 20 incarcerated, detained or in custody at the San Diego Central Jail or who will be 21 incarcerated, detained or in custody at the Rock Mountain jail facility. 22 4. The terms “POLICIES” and “PROCEDURES” mean policies, 23 procedures, handbooks, advice, directives, training materials, forms, instructions, 24 and guidelines that comprise established standards, regardless of the author. 25 5. The term “REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS” means any 26 modification to any POLICIES, PROCEDURES, or practices to afford goods, 27 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with 1 6. The term “EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION” means the use of any 2 auxiliary aid or service to ensure that individuals with DISABILITIES can convey, 3 receive and understand information. 4 7. The term “CURRENT” means in effect and not superseded and/or 5 issued on or after January 1, 2021. 7 All CURRENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES and practices regarding the 8 accessibility of facilities, housing, programs, services, activities, EFFECTIVE 9 COMMUNICATION, REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS, and assistive devices 10 for INCARCERATED PERSONS with DISABILITIES. 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28