Eidler v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 STACIA STINER, et al., Case No. 17-cv-03962-HSG (LB) 12 Plaintiffs, DISCOVERY ORDER 13 v. Re: ECF No. 269 14 BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., et al., Defendants.

17 INTRODUCTION 18 The parties dispute whether Brookdale’s response to the following interrogatory was adequate: “Please identify ANY and ALL FACILITIES that were ALTERED after January 26, 1992.”1 The court can decide the issue without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). The response is adequate because Brookdale has produced the information it has, and answering the interrogatory more specifically would require Brookdale to compile a summary.

23 Brookdale produced 12,000 pages — including floor plans, blueprints, and spreadsheets — to address the issue. The plaintiffs want a more specific response because many documents were undated, and Brookdale did not identify them as “as-built” or modified. The plaintiffs want Letter Brief – ECF No. 269 at 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); Brookdale to identify each facility altered after January 26, 1992 or declare under oath that “it has || no information within its possession from which such facilities can be identified.”

3 Brookdale objects to this request for the following reasons: (1) the request does not support the || plaintiffs’ motion for class certification; (2) its document production provides the information it has, and it has no information beyond that production because it acquired many facilities over time, mostly in 2014, and it does not track the renovations before acquisition; (3) relatedly, it does not maintain the information in the form the plaintiffs want, which means the parties have essentially the same access to the information from the production; and (4) the plaintiffs have sought the information from third parties (through subpoenas to cities in California), which is || duplicative and a more convenient means to obtain the information.* 11 The information seems relevant. In Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., in certifying a class action || challenging Taco Bell’s barriers for patrons in wheelchairs, the court held that common issues 13 included the accessibility of architectural barriers. Taco Bell contended the “readily achievable” 14 standard required “store-specific evaluations.” The court concluded that it did not: “the readily 15 achievable issue hinges, in part, on various corporation-wide factors such as the availability of || resources and thus presents a question common to the class.” 220 F.R.D. 604, 609-10 (N.D. Cal. 17 2004) (cleaned up). That said, the court denies the plaintiffs’ request. Brookdale has already 18 turned over blueprints, building plans, and spreadsheets with the information. The plaintiffs have 19 subpoenaed California cities for public records. Brookdale has represented that it has no separate || compilation, and that it is the same work for both parties to compile the information.* Given this 21 last representation, the court will not compel a response.

22 || IT IS SO ORDERED. LAE 23 Dated: June 22, 2021 LAUREL BEELER 24 United States Magistrate Judge ? Id. at 1-3.

27 3 Id. at 3-6.

28 * Id. at 3 (Brookdale stating that “no such list that Plaintiffs request exists”) (cleaned up).