Sepulveda v. Zhou
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-08136
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Sepulveda v. Zhou, Judge Illman granted discovery of restaurant operator Kun Zhou’s financial information to evaluate her Americans with Disabilities Act defense.
Richard Sepulveda received an order compelling discovery. Kun Zhou was required to provide responsive financial documents and information; the ruling also addressed how the lease allocation between Zhou and Hopewealth LLC affected the discovery dispute.
What happened
In Sepulveda v. Zhou, Richard Sepulveda sued Kun Zhou and Hopewealth LLC over alleged barriers to access at the El Crabby Crabby Restaurant. Zhou raised a defense that the changes needed to remove the barriers were not readily achievable.
Sepulveda requested Zhou’s financial records, including information about her net worth and cash, arguing that the information was relevant to that defense. Zhou opposed the request, arguing that the lease made the landlord responsible for the repairs.
Judge Robert M. Illman overruled Zhou’s objection and granted Sepulveda’s request to compel a response to Document Request No. 8. He ordered Zhou to provide responsive documents and information immediately.
The detailed version
- Sepulveda v. Zhou · No. 4:20-cv-08136
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 4, 2021
Background
Richard Sepulveda alleged that he encountered architectural barriers while visiting and attempting to use the El Crabby Crabby Restaurant. The alleged barriers included inaccessible exterior seating, restroom problems, and defective accessible parking. The complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California disability-access statutes, California civil-rights statutes, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Kun Zhou owned and operated the restaurant on premises owned and leased by Hopewealth LLC. Hopewealth did not answer the lawsuit, and the Clerk of Court entered default against it. Zhou’s answer included an affirmative defense that the alterations needed to accommodate Sepulveda were not “readily achievable.”
Discovery dispute
Sepulveda served Request for Production No. 8, seeking documents showing Zhou’s financial ability, including her net worth and cash. He argued that this information was needed to evaluate the ADA defense. Under the discovery rules, parties generally may obtain nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense when it could reasonably lead to evidence that could be used at trial.
Zhou opposed the request by arguing that the lease made the landlord responsible for ADA-related repairs. She contended that her financial records were therefore irrelevant and that Sepulveda should seek relief from the landlord.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected that objection. Relying on the ADA and cited Ninth Circuit authority, the court explained that landlords and tenants each have an independent obligation to comply with the ADA’s nondiscrimination requirements. A lease may allocate responsibility between the landlord and tenant, but that allocation does not affect the rights of third parties such as an ADA plaintiff.
The court therefore concluded that Zhou could not refuse this discovery merely because she was the tenant and restaurant operator rather than the landowner. The financial information was relevant to evaluating her “not readily achievable” defense.
Disposition
Judge Robert M. Illman overruled Zhou’s objection and granted Sepulveda’s request to compel Zhou to respond to Request for Production No. 8. The court ordered Zhou to provide responsive documents and information forthwith. The opinion addressed the discovery dispute and did not decide the ultimate merits of Sepulveda’s ADA or other claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.