Jimenez v. GWB Acquisitions LLC and The Gap

Background

Iris Jimenez alleged that medical conditions restrict her walking and body movement and that she uses a wheelchair. She said architectural barriers deterred her from visiting a retail clothing store doing business as Gap Factory because the store’s second floor was inaccessible. She sued The Gap, which operates the store, and GWB Acquisitions LLC, which leases the property, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law.

Jimenez filed a motion to compel discovery, meaning a request for an order requiring opposing parties to provide information. She sought tax returns and other documents concerning the defendants’ overall financial resources through Requests Nos. 13, 17, and 18. She argued that the information was relevant to her claim for punitive damages under the New York City Human Rights Law. She also sought documents allegedly withheld concerning the defendants’ affirmative defenses, or a privilege log identifying documents withheld on the basis of privilege, through Requests Nos. 9–12, 14–17, and 19–21.

Financial-information discovery

The court explained that punitive damages under the New York City Human Rights Law require discrimination involving willful or wanton negligence, recklessness, conscious disregard of others’ rights, or similarly reckless conduct. The court also noted that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not provide damages to private plaintiffs and that the New York State Civil Rights Law and New York State Human Rights Law do not provide punitive damages in public-accommodation cases.

Courts in the circuit disagree about whether financial information relevant to punitive damages should be disclosed before trial. Tax returns receive particularly sensitive treatment. A party seeking tax returns must show both that they are relevant and that a compelling need exists because the information cannot readily be obtained from a less intrusive source.

The court found that Jimenez had not shown a compelling need for the requested financial information at that point in the case. The Gap is a public company, and its Securities and Exchange Commission filings contain financial information. The court therefore found the requests unreasonably cumulative or duplicative and determined that the information could be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive source. As to GWB, the court stated that Jimenez may renew the motion if the punitive-damages claim survives a motion for summary judgment, which asks whether the undisputed evidence requires judgment before trial.

Other requested documents and ruling

The court also found that Jimenez had not shown that the documents concerning the affirmative defenses contained information unavailable from the public record or that their likely benefits outweighed their burden or expense. The court noted that The Gap’s financial information was publicly available and that the defendants represented that The Gap, rather than GWB, would be financially responsible for modifications to the property. The court concluded that whether a modification would impose an undue burden on GWB was therefore legally irrelevant.

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to close the docket entry for the motion. The order addressed discovery only; the opinion did not decide the underlying disability claims.