Sepulveda v. Alomari

Background

Richard Sepulveda, whom the opinion describes as an individual with a disability, sued Mojeeb Ahmed Alomari and Adel M. Aldafari, individually and doing business as Mi Ranchito Market, along with Mi Ranchito Market #2. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related California laws based on alleged access barriers at Mi Ranchito Market.

The parties had each moved for summary judgment. In an earlier order, the court granted Sepulveda’s motion as to standing and denied defendants’ motion, but declined to find that Sepulveda had established any of his causes of action. The case was set for trial.

Defendants then asked to reopen discovery and take or continue Sepulveda’s deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. They argued that a declaration Sepulveda filed in support of his summary-judgment motion contained facts that were absent from, and inconsistent with, his earlier deposition testimony. The requested questioning concerned Sepulveda’s statements that he continued to receive medical treatment in Oakland and continued to visit restaurants and stores there, despite having moved from Oakland to Manteca.

Court’s analysis

The court first observed that it was unclear whether defendants had ever deposed Sepulveda in this case. The only deposition appearing in the record was taken in a related case. Because the record did not show that defendants had taken Sepulveda’s deposition in this case, the court concluded there was nothing to reopen on that ground.

The court added that the motion would fail even if defendants had previously deposed Sepulveda in this case. Reopened depositions are generally disfavored, and defendants also had to show good cause to modify the scheduling order because fact discovery had closed on January 15, 2025.

The court found that defendants had ample time to request further questioning. They may have known as early as August 2024 that Sepulveda had moved, and evidence indicated they likely knew by December 2024 that he continued to return to Oakland. Defendants did not request another deposition in response to that information or before opposing Sepulveda’s summary-judgment motion, and they offered no justification for the delay.

The court also rejected defendants’ claimed contradiction. The deposition testimony they cited concerned where Sepulveda bought groceries and whether Costco or Safeway supplied the foods he wanted. The declaration statements concerned medical treatment and visits to Latino restaurants and stores in Oakland. The court held that the cited testimony did not contradict the declaration. It further stated that even contradictory testimony, by itself, would not justify reopening a deposition. Defendants could instead use the evidence to impeach Sepulveda at trial.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied defendants’ motion to reopen discovery. The order did not decide the underlying disability-access claims.