Salsiccia v. Sharks Sports & Entertainment, LLC

Background

Marco Salsiccia and Scott Banks, described in the opinion as blind hockey fans, sued Sharks Sports & Entertainment, LLC, the City of San Jose, and the San Jose Arena Authority. They alleged that the Sharks + SAP mobile application was inaccessible to blind users who rely on screen readers, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related California laws. The plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of other blind individuals who use or would use the application if it were accessible through screen readers.

The parties participated in structured negotiations and met in person to discuss the alleged accessibility problems. The court granted a 90-day stay of the litigation so negotiations could continue. During that stay, the plaintiffs reviewed an “alpha” version of an application update and identified remaining accessibility issues. The stay expired on August 30, 2019, and the defendants filed an answer on September 5, 2019. The application was later updated again, with the new version released on September 11, 2019.

Motion for relief from General Order 56

General Order 56 applies to this Americans with Disabilities Act case. The order stays discovery and other litigation proceedings and requires the parties to follow a schedule for a joint inspection and mediation. The plaintiffs argued that the parties had already exchanged information, met to inspect the application, and attempted settlement, so the purposes of General Order 56 had been satisfied. They asked to begin discovery immediately and requested a case management conference or, alternatively, an expedited case schedule.

The defendants argued that abandoning the General Order 56 schedule would be premature. They pointed out that the application described in the complaint had been replaced and that the current version had not yet undergone a joint inspection. They also argued that formal mediation had not occurred, although the parties had engaged in informal negotiations and the defendants had provided requested information and allowed private inspections.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that both sides had made good-faith efforts to address the alleged accessibility problems. However, because the application had been updated after the parties’ in-person meetings, the current version still needed to be jointly inspected and evaluated. The court also concluded that the parties would benefit from structured and supervised mediation rather than relying only on informal settlement discussions.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for Administrative Relief from General Order 56. The court set October 23, 2019, as the new deadline for the parties to complete the required inspection. This order addressed the litigation schedule and did not decide whether the application violated disability-access laws.