Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementplaintiffdefendantlitigationdiscoverymotioncorporationcomplianceclass actioncivil procedure
plaintiffdefendantdiscoverymotioncivil procedure

Related Cases

Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 35 Fed.R.Serv.2d 223, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,860
View Case »
State ex rel. Scott v. Roper, 688 S.W.2d 757, 52 A.L.R.4th 1031, 53 USLW 2521
View Case »
U.S. v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 81 A.F.T.R.2d 98-820, 98-1 USTC P 50,230, 39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1189
View Case »
McCullough v. Waterside Associates, 102 Conn.App. 23, 925 A.2d 352
View Case »
United States v. Yielding, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2009 WL 10678588
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Vallabharpurapu v. Burger King Corp., 276 F.R.D. 611, 80 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1506

Facts

The plaintiffs, consisting of 27 individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters, filed a class action against Burger King Corporation, claiming access barriers at 86 of its restaurants in California. These restaurants were not included in a previous settlement from a related class action. The plaintiffs sought discovery of architectural surveys conducted in 2008 to support their claims of noncompliance with disability access requirements, which they argued were essential for class certification.

The pending motions arise from Plaintiffs request for production of architectural surveys performed of the BKLs in 2008 and information relating to those surveys and any access barriers removed as a result.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the architectural surveys were discoverable despite being protected by the work product doctrine and whether the plaintiffs had a substantial need for the surveys that would overcome this protection.

The main legal issues were whether the architectural surveys were discoverable despite being protected by the work product doctrine and whether the plaintiffs had a substantial need for the surveys that would overcome this protection.

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. The work product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, but may be overcome if a party shows substantial need for the materials and cannot obtain their substantial equivalent without undue hardship.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), a party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.”

Analysis

The court found that the architectural surveys were relevant to the plaintiffs' claims and necessary for class certification. Although the surveys were initially protected by the work product doctrine, the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial need for the factual information contained in the surveys, as they could not feasibly conduct their own surveys of the numerous restaurants involved. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to the surveys, redacted to exclude legal theories or strategies.

The court found that the architectural surveys were relevant to the plaintiffs' claims and necessary for class certification. Although the surveys were initially protected by the work product doctrine, the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial need for the factual information contained in the surveys, as they could not feasibly conduct their own surveys of the numerous restaurants involved.

Conclusion

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of the architectural surveys and also granted the defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply. The defendant was ordered to produce the surveys redacted to remove any opinions, impressions, or strategies.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of the architectural surveys and also granted the defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in this case as the court granted their motion to compel the production of the surveys, emphasizing their substantial need for the information to support their claims.

The plaintiffs prevailed in this case as the court granted their motion to compel the production of the surveys, emphasizing their substantial need for the information to support their claims.

You must be