Smith v. RW's Bierstube, Inc.
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:17-cv-01866
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 11
Smith v. RW’s Bierstube: Judge Bowbeer denied Bierstube’s request to inspect Smith’s home and apartment-property areas during an accessibility lawsuit.
Scott Smith was not required to allow the requested inspection. Bierstube’s motion was denied, although the court said Bierstube could arrange an inspection of the apartment building’s common areas through appropriate channels.
What happened
In Scott Smith v. RW’s Bierstube, Inc. and Yanz Properties, LLC, Bierstube asked to inspect Smith’s residence and nearby property, including ramps, slopes, parking spaces, and entrances. Bierstube said the inspection could show how architectural barriers affected Smith’s disability and the remedies he could seek under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Smith argued that the inspection was irrelevant and too intrusive.
The court found that measurements inside Smith’s apartment and inside the apartment building were unlikely to help decide whether the parking-lot conditions at Bierstube violated the law. It also found that inspecting Smith’s home would invade his privacy more than the information would help the case. The court found that measurements in the apartment building’s parking lot and entrance areas could be relevant, but Smith did not control those common areas and therefore could not authorize their inspection.
Judge Bowbeer denied Bierstube’s Motion to Compel Inspection. The denial covered inspection inside Smith’s apartment and building, because it was irrelevant and overly intrusive, and inspection of the parking lot and entrance areas, because Smith lacked authority to permit it. The court said Bierstube could arrange an inspection of those common areas through appropriate channels.
The detailed version
- Smith v. RW's Bierstube, Inc. · No. 0:17-cv-01866
- Patrick Schiltz
- Aug. 20, 2018
Background
Scott Smith sued Bierstube, alleging that it violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make its public-accommodation facilities accessible to people who use wheelchairs. His allegations included problems with accessible parking spaces, signs, access aisles, accessible routes, slopes, and ramp flares. The case included claims concerning Bierstube’s parking lot and entry areas.
Bierstube served Smith with a notice seeking to inspect and measure his residence and surrounding apartment-property areas. The proposed inspection included the interior and exterior of Smith’s residence, parking spaces, curb ramps, common areas, slopes, entries, and maneuvering clearances. After the parties could not resolve their disagreement, Bierstube moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel the inspection.
Parties’ arguments
Bierstube argued that the inspection could provide relevant evidence about the extent to which the alleged barriers affected Smith’s disability, the scope of any relief, his standing to seek remedies for particular barriers, and whether he could show the harm needed for an injunction. Bierstube also argued that fairness supported allowing it to test Smith’s statements about which slopes and clearances created barriers for him.
Smith argued that conditions at his residence would not show whether Bierstube’s facilities violated the Americans with Disabilities Act or whether those violations needed to be remedied. He also argued that the proposed inspection of his private residence was excessively intrusive. Smith said he controlled his private apartment but not the apartment building’s common areas, including its parking lot and entrance areas.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the discovery rules requiring requested information to be relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. It also considered the court’s authority to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and to restrict an inspection when its burdens outweigh its likely benefit.
The court denied the motion to compel inspection inside Smith’s private residence and inside the apartment building. Bierstube had provided no basis showing that measurements of interior residential areas would be comparable to, or would help determine the effect of, the parking-lot conditions at issue in the lawsuit. The court also found that any possible usefulness of inspecting Smith’s apartment was outweighed by the invasion of his privacy.
The court reached a different conclusion about the apartment building’s parking lot and entrance areas, finding that measurements there could be relevant to disputed issues. However, the court accepted Smith’s position that he did not possess or control those common areas and therefore could not grant permission for their inspection under Rule 34. The court denied the motion to compel inspection of those areas but stated that Bierstube could make arrangements to inspect them through appropriate channels.
Disposition
Judge Hildy Bowbeer ordered that Bierstube’s Motion to Compel Inspection be DENIED.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.