Towner v. A Place for Rover Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00553
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 MARK E. TOWNER, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00553-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 EMERGENCY MOTION v. 10 A PLACE FOR ROVER INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 The Court considers Plaintiff Mark E. Towner’s emergency motion requesting 14 various relief. Dkt. No. 77. The Court construes the motion as a request for 15 accommodations under the Western District of Washington’s Disability Access and 16 Accommodations Policy. See https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/visitors/access. Towner 17 asserts that he has Treatment Resistant Major Depressive Disorder and heart 18 failure that are exacerbated by stress, “risking health deterioration without 19 accommodation.” Dkt. No. 77 at 3. He requests the following relief: 20 (1) “a closed (in camera) oral argument hearing to resolve all diversity 21 jurisdiction issues and motions to dismiss (Docs. 58, 71, 73)”; 22 23 1 (2) “submission of confidential documents (e.g., medical records, divorce/pre- 2 nuptial court documents, FDA IDA trials) under seal at the hearing”;

3 (3) “full explanations by Plaintiff to prove diversity”; 4 (4) “protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), HIPAA, 5 SSA regulations, FDA confidentiality, and related acts”; 6 (5) “suspension of all current motion deadlines/orders (e.g., Aug 29, Sep 5, 7 Sep 12 noting date, Sep 12 26(f) conference) pending hearing; and” 8 (6) “ruling from the bench.”

9 Id. at 1. The Court DENIES the motion for the reasons below. 10 Courts in this district are committed to providing equal access through 11 reasonable accommodations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act 12 (ADA). See generally Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). “Title II of the ADA 13 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act grant individuals with disabilities the right to 14 reasonable modification to have meaningful access to a covered entity’s services, 15 programs and activities, so long as that modification will not constitute an undue

16 burden or fundamentally alter the nature of such program or activity[.]” Cal. 17 Council of the Blind v. Cnty. of Alameda, 985 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1242 (N.D. Cal. 18 2013); see Lonberg v. City of Riverside, 571 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2009) 19 (The ADA’s prohibition against discrimination “is universally understood as a 20 requirement to provide ‘meaningful access.’”). 21 Assuming without deciding that Towner has a disability, the Court finds that

22 the requested accommodations are not reasonable, as they would fundamentally 23 alter court proceedings, potentially affect the Court’s substantive decisions in this 1 matter, and impact the due process rights of other litigants in this case by limiting 9 their access to the courts and restricting their right to be heard on their own

3 motions. The Court finds no other legal basis to grant Towner’s motion.

4 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Towner’s emergency motion. Dkt. No. 77. To

5 the extent Towner faces genuine barriers to court access due to his claimed

G disability status, he may file a targeted motion identifying specific access

7 ||impediments and proposing narrowly tailored accommodations that do not affect merits or procedural posture of the case.

9 10 Dated this 28th day of August, 2025.

Aaa be 12 amal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23