Brooke v. Rihh LP
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-06852
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Brooke v. RIHH LP, Judge Illston denied Theresa Brooke’s discovery request, while RIHH’s position made the 2010 ADA standards apply.
Theresa Brooke and RIHH LP, the parties to the ADA access lawsuit; the ruling limited discovery and barred RIHH from relying on the hotel’s construction or alteration history in this case.
What happened
In Theresa Brooke v. RIHH LP, Brooke brought an Americans with Disabilities Act access lawsuit concerning the Residence Inn Livermore Pleasanton and requested the hotel’s construction and alteration history.
Brooke argued that these records were needed to determine which accessibility standards applied. RIHH said it did not dispute liability based on the hotel’s construction or alteration history, so the records were unnecessary.
Judge Susan Illston denied Brooke’s request for production. The court treated RIHH’s statement as an admission that the 2010 standards apply and barred RIHH from making arguments based on the hotel’s construction or alteration history in this case.
The detailed version
- Brooke v. Rihh LP · No. 3:19-cv-06852
- Susan Illston
- Aug. 4, 2020
Background
Theresa Brooke brought an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access action against RIHH LP, identified in the opinion as the owner and operator of the Residence Inn Livermore Pleasanton in Livermore, California. Brooke alleged that the hotel failed to provide an ADA-accessible “two bedroom suite” or “Penthouse suite.”
Brooke requested the hotel’s construction and alteration history to determine which ADA accessibility standards applied. The opinion explains that different standards may apply depending on whether construction or alterations occurred after March 15, 2012. RIHH argued that it did not dispute liability based on the hotel’s construction or alteration history and therefore did not need to produce those records.
Court’s Analysis
The court discussed the 1991 and 2010 ADA Standards. For existing structures that were not altered after March 2012, the court explained, liability may depend on whether removing a barrier was “readily achievable.” For structures constructed or altered after March 15, 2012, the defendant may be liable even if removing the barrier was not readily achievable.
The court also discussed General Order 56(4)(a), which requires a defendant to disclose information about the construction or alteration history of the subject property if the defendant intends to dispute liability on that basis. RIHH stated that it did not dispute liability on that basis and sought to keep the construction and alteration history outside discovery.
The court treated RIHH’s statement as a judicial admission—a formal statement that removes an issue from dispute—and concluded that the 2010 ADA standards apply in this case. The court further held that RIHH was barred from making arguments based on the hotel’s construction or alteration history in later proceedings in this case.
Disposition
Judge Susan Illston denied Brooke’s request for production because the construction and alteration history was no longer an issue in dispute. The order resolved the discovery dispute; it did not state that the court had decided the ultimate ADA liability question.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.