Jackson, et al v. Fort Stanton Hosp, et al, No. 1:1987cv00839 - Document 2223 (D.N.M. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen on Discovery Dispute on Rule 60(b) Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cubra Letter of 07-13-2018, # 2 Exhibit Walz Letter of 07-20-2018, # 3 Exhibit Cubra Reply Letter) (KBM)

Download PDF
Jackson, et al v. Fort Stanton Hosp, et al Doc. 2223 Att. 3 PETER CUBRA attorney Cubra Law Office 4004 Carlisle NE, Suite O Albuquerque, NM 87107 TELEPHONE: (505) 361-2140 FACSIMILE: (505) 312-7757 July 23, 2018 VIA EMAIL ONLY The Honorable Karen Molzen United States Magistrate Judge Pete V. Domenici United States Courthouse Albuquerque, NM 87102 molzenchambers@nmcourt.fed.us Re: Jackson, et al. v. Los Lunas Center for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, et al., No. CIV 87-0839 JAP/KBM Dear Judge Molzen, I am writing on behalf of counsel for the plaintiff class to briefly reply to Defendants’ July 20, 2018 letter that opposed Plaintiffs’ July 13, 2018 letter regarding why Plaintiffs’ counsel need to obtain information about participants in the State developmental disabilities system who are not Jackson class members and why we need the information that will enable us to compare what happens to Jackson class members with what happens to other people in the State developmental disabilities system, both those who have severe disabilities and those who do not have severe disabilities. Firstly, contrary to their assertion, there is no undue burden associated with providing existing data sets. However, there is a burden to Defendants associated with redacting from their databases and spreadsheets the data that is already there regarding both class members and non-class members. It would save Defendants work to provide the existing information in its usual format. Second, Defendants’ letter argues, without citation to applicable authority, that the principles governing discovery in the employment discrimination cases we cited because they explicitly addressed discovery when disparate impact claims are litigated, do not provide the Court with helpful guidance with respect to discovery in disability discrimination cases. For discovery purposes, the type of discrimination does not matter. The issue is whether non-party information may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the law is clear that such non-party data is discoverable. Moreover, the data we seek is directly relevant to any claim of denial of “meaningful access.” It also is central to a disparate impact claim under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. Dockets.Justia.com Honorable Karen B. Molzen July 23, 2018 Page 2 Public entities are prohibited from "providing a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(iii), or from "providing different or separate aids, benefits, or services to individuals with disabilities . . . than is provided to others unless such action is necessary to provide qualified individuals with disabilities with aids, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others," 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(iv). Gregory v. Admin. Office of the Courts of N.J., 168 F. Supp. 2d 319, 330 Without the data we seek, Plaintiffs cannot prove that Defendants are providing Plaintiffs “with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others.” Accordingly, we ask Your Honor to direct Defendants to provide the materials we seek. Please let us know if there is anything further we can do to assist Your Honor in resolving these disputes. Respectfully submitted, Peter Cubra Peter Cubra cc via email: Jerry Walz James Grubel Gabrielle Sanchez-Sandoval Maureen Sanders Plaintiffs’ co-counsel

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.