Saechao v. Western Dental Services, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California resolves a discovery dispute in an ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and ACA case brought by a deaf plaintiff against Western Dental Services, Inc. The Court orders additional production concerning records relating to the plaintiff, interpreter services, employee training, federal financial assistance, and compliance assurances, and directs the parties to confer regarding complaints by other patients. The Court also permits a limited further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and sets production and status-report deadlines.

Holdings

1. Western Dental had not complied with its obligation to produce documents responsive to RFP 1 and must search for and produce nonprivileged records relating to Saechao, including appointment records, scheduling records, audit-trail and keystroke information, and responsive metadata.
2. Western Dental must search for and produce nonprivileged training materials and records showing whether and when relevant San Jose office employees completed training concerning auxiliary aids and services for deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals.
3. Western Dental must produce responsive vendor contracts and records reflecting the provision of auxiliary aids and interpreter services at the San Jose office, and may not resist production merely because it must ask a contracted vendor for responsive information.
4. Western Dental must produce documents sufficient to show whether it received federal financial assistance and must produce assurances of compliance submitted when applying for federal financial assistance during the relevant period; it may alternatively respond to an admission request concerning receipt of such assistance.
5. Saechao was not entitled to discovery of all complaints nationwide concerning failures to provide auxiliary aids since 2010, but the parties must confer about whether complaints can be queried by date, location, or subject matter to obtain narrower and less burdensome relevant information.
6. Saechao may take a further limited Rule 30(b)(6) deposition concerning the documents and information ordered produced, after production and before the close of fact discovery, for no more than two hours.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Western Dental had complied with its obligation to produce documents responsive to RFP 1 concerning records relating to Saechao.
2. Whether Western Dental had to produce additional employee training materials and training-completion records responsive to RFP 5.
3. Whether Western Dental had to produce vendor contracts and office-specific records concerning auxiliary aids and interpreter services responsive to RFP 3(e), including records obtainable from vendors within Western Dental's control.
4. Whether Western Dental had to produce documents concerning federal financial assistance and assurances of compliance responsive to RFPs 8 and 10.
5. Whether Saechao was entitled to nationwide and decade-spanning discovery concerning complaints by other deaf or hard-of-hearing patients, and whether a further limited Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was warranted.

Disposition

other