Antolini v. Thurman

Background

Harold Thurman, Brad Thurman, and 33 BRE Inc. moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel Dino Antolini to provide substantive responses to document requests and interrogatories. The dispute arose in Antolini’s Title III Americans with Disabilities Act case. The defendants sought information about Antolini’s residential leases or deeds, federal income-tax returns showing employment, residence and business addresses, home-health aides, people with relevant information, visits to the building, the basis for proposed accessibility modifications, and fact and expert witnesses.

Antolini objected that the requests were irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome, harassing, invasive of privacy, or outside the scope of the lawsuit. He also stated that he was not employed, that an expert had not been retained, and that information about his disability was already reflected in medical records.

Court’s analysis and rulings

The court declined to consider the defendants’ argument concerning interrogatory 18 because they raised it for the first time in their reply papers. The court then ruled as follows:

- Document Demand 5: The request for all leases or deeds involving Antolini’s residential use during the prior four years sought irrelevant information. The court sustained Antolini’s relevance objection. - Document Demand 18: The request for federal income-tax returns, including schedules, showing employment was irrelevant because Antolini’s earnings were not at issue. The court sustained Antolini’s relevance objection. - Interrogatory 1: Antolini had identified himself and all named defendants as people with relevant information, and the defendants did not show that more information was needed. The court declined to compel another response. - Interrogatory 2: Antolini provided his residential address and asserted that he was not employed, so there was no business address to provide. The defendants also did not explain the relevance of the length of time he had lived there. The court declined to compel another response. - Interrogatory 3: The request asked whether there were steps at the entrance to Antolini’s residence and whether the entrance had an accessible ramp or another accessible design. Because this information could bear on whether Antolini had a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court found it relevant and proportional. The court overruled his objections and required a response. - Interrogatory 4: The request sought the dates and times Antolini visited the building, whether he was denied full and equal access, and his means of transportation. The court found the information relevant and overruled his objections. - Interrogatory 10: The request sought information about any current home-health-aide assistance. The court found it relevant to the disability element of the claim, overruled Antolini’s objections, and required a response. - Interrogatory 12: The court required Antolini to state the basis for his contention that accommodations and modifications to remove barriers were readily achievable. It did not require responses to the other wording in the interrogatory concerning whether changes were structurally practical or technically feasible and their estimated costs. - Interrogatory 20: Antolini identified himself as the only expected fact witness. The court declined to compel another response. - Interrogatory 21: Antolini stated that no expert had been retained. The court declined to compel a response because no expert information was currently available and expert disclosures are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), rather than Local Civil Rule 33.3.

Disposition

Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox concluded that the defendants’ motion to compel was denied in part and granted in part. The court ordered Antolini to provide the required responses to interrogatories 3, 4, 10, and the specified portion of 12 by October 20, 2020. The order did not require further responses to Demands 5 and 18 or interrogatories 1, 2, 20, and 21.