Goodritz v. Centra Associates, L.P. et al

MOTION to Compel

E.D. Pa.November 15, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE GOODRITZ, Plaintiff, v. CENTRA ASSOCIATES, L.P., and E-Z PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 2:17-cv-2172-PBT ORDER AND NOW, this ____ day of _________________, 2017, upon consideration of the Motion of Centra Associates, L.P. and E-Z Park, Inc. (improperly named as E-Z Parking Management, Inc.) (collectively, the “Defendants”) to compel discovery, and any responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, George Goodritz (“Goodritz”) shall produce to counsel for the Defendants all documents requested in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of Schedule A to the Notice of Deposition issued September 26, 2017 by Defendants to Anderson. BY THE COURT: ___________________________________ Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 1 of 43 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE GOODRITZ, Plaintiff, v. CENTRA ASSOCIATES, L.P., and E-Z PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 2:17-cv-2172-PBT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Centra Associates, L.P. and E-Z Park, Inc. (improperly named as E-Z Parking Management, Inc.) (collectively, the “Defendants”) respectfully move the Court to enter an Order compelling George Goodritz (“Goodritz”) to produce to counsel for Defendants all documents requested in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10,11, 13 and 14 of Schedule A to the Notice of Deposition issued September 26, 2017 by Defendants to Goodritz. The bases for this Motion are set forth more fully in the attached Brief, which is incorporated by reference herein. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 2 of 43 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their Motion to Compel and enter an Order in the form attached. Respectfully submitted, COZEN O’CONNOR Date: November 15, 2017 /s/ F. Warren Jacoby By: F. Warren Jacoby (PA 10012) One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-665-2000 215-665-2013 (fax) Counsel for Defendants Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 3 of 43 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE GOODRITZ, Plaintiff, v. CENTRA ASSOCIATES, L.P., and E-Z PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 2:17-cv-2172-PBT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Centra Associates, L.P. and E-Z Park, Inc. (improperly named as E-Z Parking Management, Inc.) (collectively, the “Defendants”) hereby submit this Brief in support of their Motion to Compel discovery from George Goodritz (“Goodritz” or “Plaintiff”). I. Introduction Goodritz commenced this action against the Defendants asserting that, as the owner and operator of a certain parking facility located at 912-914 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, the Defendants had failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In his Complaint, Goodritz sought injunctive relief against the Defendants to compel them to comply with the ADA, together with costs and mandatory attorneys’ fees as provided by U.S.C. Section 12005, and such other legal and equitable relief from Defendants as the Court deems just and proper. On September 26, 2017, Defendants issued a Notice of Deposition to Goodritz, seeking his deposition on November 1, 2017. With their Notice of Deposition, a copy of which is Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 4 of 43 2 attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A, Defendants requested that Goodritz produce to counsel for the Defendants at the time of his deposition certain relevant documents pursuant to FRCP 30 and 34. In response, counsel for Goodritz served counsel for the Defendants with his Objections to the documents requested in Schedule A to the Notice of Deposition, a copy of which Objections is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B1. Pursuant to Local Rule 26.1(f), counsel thereafter engaged in a “meet and confer” regarding the documents which Plaintiff had refused to produce. As the result, Counsel for Defendants is willing to temporarily withdraw certain of the Defendants’ document requests – reserving the right to propound them at some point in the future as noted in Defendants’ Reponses herein. Defendants now file their Motion to Compel with respect to those of their document requests which were not withdrawn, and seek relief from the Court regarding such production in advance of the deposition of Goodritz, which has not yet been rescheduled pending the disposition of this Motion and the production of the documents requested. II. Argument2 REQUEST NO. 1: All receipts and ticket stubs (both parts of the ticket stubs) or similar items from any alleged actual or attempted parking by Plaintiff at each of the parking lots which is the subject of the respective Complaints filed by Plaintiff (a) in this action, (b) in the other separate actions commenced by Plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“PA Federal Court”) and in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (“NJ Federal Court”) against other defendants asserting violations of the ADA as set forth in the 1 Basically, as is evident from Plaintiff’s Objections attached as Exhibit B, Plaintiff’s Objections raised the issue of privilege and/or that Defendants were seeking information that is not relevant to Defendants’ claims or defenses in this Action – and as such is not discoverable under FRCP 26(b)(1). As noted herein, the parties have submitted a proposed Confidentiality Stipulation to the Court for approval. 2 For each of the Requests that have not been withdrawn, Defendants set forth the Request and the Response of the Defendants. Where a Request has been withdrawn, it is noted. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 5 of 43 3 attached List (the actions in (b) hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Other Federal Court Actions”). RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: With respect to this action, the only document provided by Plaintiff was an alleged receipt from the Plaintiff’s visit to the parking facility which is the apparent subject of his Complaint. Plaintiff’s Objection fails to address, nor are documents provided, with respect to the prior times that Plaintiff apparently parked at the parking facility in question as he admittedly “patronized” the subject parking lot previously. Compl. ¶ 29. By his own acknowledgment, therefore, he had previously found reasonable accommodation at such lot sufficient not to be deterred from parking “because of the lack of usable handicap-accessible parking places”. Compl. ¶ 30 Yet, in his Complaint, he indicates that upon returning he allegedly found no “accessible” parking, and therefore did not patronize the lot at this latter time. The picture attached to his Complaint (Exhibit A) illustrates that there was at least one, if not two, handicap accessible parking striped spaces when he arrived at the subject lot at the time in question, which was not occupied. Indeed, one of the spaces was at the edge of the parking lot leading to the street and afforded more than enough access to his vehicle and for him to access over a very short distance the street on foot. Moreover, given that Plaintiff commenced twenty-nine separate actions against other parking lot owners and operators, it is relevant and instructive as to whether he obtained receipts and other evidence that he was ever at any or all of those other lots, and whether the conditions at these other lots likewise “discouraged” him from parking there. The documents sought are not just for the visits by the Plaintiff which are the subject of his Complaints in this and the Other Federal Court Actions, but also for any prior or other visits by Plaintiff at any of such parking facilities. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 6 of 43 4 A plaintiff lacks standing to bring an action under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) unless he can prove a “real or immediate threat that [he] will be wronged again.” Brown v. Mt. Fuji Japanese Restaurant, 615 F. App’x 757, 758 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)). As such, it is wholly insufficient that Plaintiff may “some day” return to Defendants’ business; rather, to survive summary judgment, Plaintiff must bring sufficient evidence that he “would visit [Defendants’ business] in the imminent future but for” the alleged violations of the ADA. Id. at 758. Ascertaining a plaintiff’s likely future actions, and therefore his standing to sue under the ADA, requires a fact-intensive analysis of the plaintiff’s past habits and current intentions. In so doing, courts look to a number of factors, including: (1) plaintiff’s past patronage of defendant’s business; (2) plaintiff’s frequency of travel near defendant’s business; (3) the definiteness of plaintiff’s plans to return to defendant’s business; and (4) the proximity of the defendant’s business to plaintiff’s residence. Id. at 758. Thus, for example, courts will consider evidence that a plaintiff had or had not, on any occasion, frequented defendant’s business. See id. at 758; Hollinger v. Reading Health Sys., No. 15-5249, 2017 WL 429804, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30 2017); Anderson v. Macy’s, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 531, 540 (W.D. Pa. 2013). Equally important, however, is whether similar services are conveniently availability from alternative providers and whether plaintiff uses such services. See Anderson, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 539. Indeed, plaintiff’s purpose in visiting defendant’s business— as compared to other service providers—is pertinent to the issue of standing to the extent it suggests a lack of intent to return. See id. at 539-40. Any evidence that Plaintiff used or attempted to use Defendants’ parking lot—whether as alleged in the Complaint or otherwise—is, as a matter of law, relevant to issues of standing under the ADA. Brown, 615 F. App’x at 758. Further, evidence that Plaintiff has used or attempted to Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 7 of 43 5 use other parking facilities, as alleged in the Other Federal Court Actions, speaks to whether Plaintiff is more likely to forego Defendants’ services in light of more convenient—and perhaps more frequently used—alternatives. See Anderson, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 539. In short, as any evidence of Plaintiff’s usage of public-parking services will tend to prove that he is more or less likely to use Defendants’ services. Therefore, all such evidence is relevant to standing and must be produced. See Response No. 8. REQUEST NO. 2: All pictures (including videos) taken by you, or on your behalf or by any third party of which you or your counsel have knowledge, of any parking lot that is the subject of your respective Complaints in this action or in the Other Federal Court Actions. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: Given that Plaintiff commenced twenty nine separate actions against other parking lot owners and operators, asserting claims and complaints that were substantially, if not virtually, identical, pictures from those other lots are relevant and instructive as to the conditions at other parking lots that he visited and whether he was also discouraged from patronizing those facilities, and the circumstances under which he visited and/or identified those lots. Similarly, photos taken by Plaintiff of Defendants’ business or any other similar business provide unique, contemporaneous evidence of Plaintiff’s usage of said services and the availability thereof. As such photos both directly and indirectly evidence Plaintiff’s parking habits, and therefore his likely future use of Defendants’ business, they are relevant to this dispute and Plaintiff’s standing, and must be produced. See Hollinger v. Reading Health Sys., No. 15-5249, 2017 WL 429804, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30 2017). REQUEST NO. 3: All documents produced by you or on your behalf, or by any of the defendants in any of the Other Federal Court Actions. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 8 of 43 6 RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: Any documents produced by Plaintiff or by any of the defendants in any of the Other Federal Court Actions are relevant and discoverable, particularly given the similarity of the causes of action and the subject matter thereof, and common counsel. Certainly, any documents that Plaintiff produced in the other actions—the claims in which are virtually identical to those asserted in the instant action—would be instructive as to issues of disability and standing, whether he was discriminated against by the Defendants in this action or in the other actions that he commenced, and what constituted such alleged discrimination and his response to same. Again, documents that evidence whether Plaintiff is more or less likely to use Defendants’ services in the future are relevant to standing in this dispute. Brown, 615 F. App’x at 758. Such evidence includes documents disclosing the availability of similar services or Plaintiff’s intent or purpose in using such services. See Anderson, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 539-40. In light of the similarities between this action and the Other Federal Court Actions, it necessarily follows that the documents produced in the latter—such as evidence of the frequency of and intent behind Plaintiff’s use of other parking services—will speak to Plaintiff’s intent to use Defendants’ services in the future. As such, these documents are relevant, discoverable, and must be produced. REQUEST NO. 4: All settlement agreements (including all drafts of proposed or executed settlement agreements) that you and/or your counsel entered into with respect to any of the Other Federal Court Actions. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: To date, Plaintiff has apparently settled at least twenty of the other ADA actions that he commenced.3 That settlement agreement, and any other settlement agreement(s), are evidence of the standards imposed by Plaintiff on the other 3 Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a list of the ADA actions commenced by Plaintiff in the Federal Courts of PA as of November 2, 2017. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 9 of 43 7 defendants as a condition of settling, the amount of fees and costs—and other consideration— paid by them (for services and costs which were common to all of the eight pending cases), and the conditions of any settlements as compared with the claims against Plaintiff, particularly given that all of the claims are under the same provisions of the ADA and involved substantially identical facts and circumstances, with common counsel. REQUEST NO. 5: All Complaints and other pleadings, motions, responses, discovery requests and responses, filed or served by you or any other party in the Other Federal Court Actions. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: DEFENDANTS WILL WITHDRAW THIS REQUEST AT THIS TIME, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THEIR RIGHT TO ASSERT SAME AT THE TIME THAT PLAINTIFF MAKES APPLICATION FOR HIS COUNSEL FEES AND COSTS. REQUEST NO. 6: All transcripts of depositions taken in any of the Other Federal Court Actions. REPSONSE OF DEFENDANTS: DEFENDANTS WILL WITHDRAW THIS REQUEST AT THIS TIME, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THEIR RIGHT TO ASSERT SAME AT THE TIME THAT PLAINTIFF MAKES APPLICATION FOR HIS COUNSEL FEES AND COSTS OR ANY DEPOSITIONS ARE TAKEN IN THE OTHER FEDERAL COURT ACTIONS. REQUEST NO. 7: All documents that establish that you are, in fact, disabled for purposes of the ADA as alleged in the respective Complaints in this action and in the Other Federal Court Actions. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: Plaintiff objected to Request No. 7 not on the grounds of relevance or overbreadth—likely because no request could possibly be more relevant and Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 10 of 43 8 narrowly tailored to the Plaintiff’s discrimination claim under the ADA—but rather because Plaintiff maintains that “ADA” had not been defined in the request. Plaintiff is attempting to obfuscate the Request by questioning what the term ADA means. The reference is to the “Americans with Disabilities Act,” which is defined in the Complaint, and based upon the 39 suits brought by counsel, something with which he should be familiar. The request sought all documents establishing Plaintiff’s disability “as alleged in the respective Complaint,” thus incorporating the definition of ADA therein. As this material is patently relevant, we demand that it be produced. Second, a confidentiality order has been agreed upon and has been submitted to the Court for approval. As such, Plaintiff can provide no basis for withholding documents supporting its claim of disability in this case. Finally, documents evidencing Plaintiff’s disability in the Other Federal Court Actions, which relate to substantially identical claims by Plaintiff against substantially identical types of facilities, are highly relevant as they address the same factual issue. Plaintiff is or is not disabled. It is not a determination to be made based solely upon evidence in this action, particularly given the common nature of the facts and allegations in all of the Other Federal Court Actions. A person qualifies as “disabled” for purposes of the ADA if he experiences “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities.” 42 U.S.C. 12102(1)(A) (emphasis added). Thus, evidence that (a) Plaintiff suffers a physical or mental impairment; (b) said impairment limits a life activity; or (c) speaks to the extent of said limitation is relevant to a crucial element of Plaintiff’s claim. As documents responsive to this request speak both directly and indirectly to these issues, they are relevant, discoverable, and must be produced. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 11 of 43 9 Likewise, the similarities between this action and the Other Federal Court Actions render the documents produced therein necessarily relevant. In addition to their relevancy to issues of standing, discussed supra, evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged disability is/was necessarily at issue in the Other Federal Court Actions. While, presumably, some of this material has or will be produced under other requests, any differences between what was produced in these cases is crucial to understanding the history and extent of Plaintiff’s alleged disability, as well as to challenge the veracity of Plaintiff’s allegations. As such, the documents produced in Other Federal Court Actions must be produced here as well. REQUEST NO. 8: All documents that you or your counsel contend establish, in whole or in part, your standing to bring this action and the Other Federal Court Actions. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: First, a confidentiality order has been agreed upon and submitted to the Court for approval. As such, Plaintiff can provide no basis for withholding documents supporting its claim of standing in this case. Second, documents evidencing standing in the Other Federal Court Actions, which are drawn from substantially identical claims by Plaintiff against substantially identical types of facilities, might evidence or otherwise confirm a lack of standing in this action and are therefore highly relevant. A comparison of the pleadings filed by Plaintiff (there are now thirty actions) will readily reveal that the factual allegations and causes of action, and profile and identity of the plaintiffs and the defendants, are substantially the same. If there is evidence in any of the Other Federal Court Actions that the Plaintiff does not have standing therein, that evidence may direct a similar assessment of Plaintiff’s standing in the instant action. It is not a determination to be made solely upon evidence in this action, particularly given the common nature of all of the Other Federal Court Actions. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 12 of 43 10 For example, evidence that Plaintiff has used or attempted to use other parking facilities, as alleged in the Other Federal Court Actions, speaks to whether Plaintiff is more likely to forego Defendants’ services in light of more convenient—and perhaps more frequently used— alternatives. See Anderson, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 539. In short, as any evidence of Plaintiff’s usage of public-parking services will tend to prove he is more or less likely to use Defendants’ services, all such evidence is relevant to standing and must be produced. Given that Plaintiff has now commenced twenty-nine separate actions against other parking lots owners and operators, conditions at other parking lots he visited and whether he was also discouraged from patronizing those facilities, and the circumstances under which he visited and/or identified those lots, are relevant and instructive as to his standing in this case. Similarly, any evidence that Plaintiff lacked standing in the Other Federal Court Actions would evidence a lack of standing in this case. For example, if Plaintiff has exhibited a pattern of visiting parking providers merely to institute legal action, but lacked any intent to return, such evidence could indicate a modus operandi into which this action might fit. See Anderson, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 539-40. Put another way, Plaintiff’s intent in visiting the businesses at issue in the Other Federal Court Actions would provide some evidence of his intent in visiting Defendants’ business, thus speaking to the likelihood with which he would return “but for” the alleged violations of the ADA. Brown, 615 F. App’x at 758. Likewise, what is the basis for Plaintiff to contend that none of the facilities had the intention to cure the alleged defects.4 As such, documents establishing standing in the Other Federal Court Actions are relevant, discoverable, and must be produced. 4 As an example, Defendants addressed any alleged deficiencies promptly upon being identified in the ADA Complaints filed by Mr. Rooks, in addition to other locations. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 13 of 43 11 REQUEST NO. 9: All invoices, bills or statements that you received from any counsel representing you in this action or in any of the Other Federal Court Actions for services rendered or costs incurred in this action or in any of the Other Federal Court Actions. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: DEFENDANTS WILL WITHDRAW THIS REQUEST AT THIS TIME, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THEIR RIGHT TO ASSERT SAME AT THE TIME THAT PLAINTIFF MAKES APPLICATION FOR HIS COUNSEL FEES AND COSTS. REQUEST NO. 10: Your complete automobile and liability insurance policies (including all endorsements) that provide any casualty or liability coverage for any automobile that you own or use, including the automobile(s) that you were allegedly driving when attempting to park at the respective parking lots referred to in the respective Complaints in this action and in the Other Federal Court Actions. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: Certainly, any evidence that would bear on the Plaintiff’s condition as asserted by him in his Complaints is relevant. This evidence may also bear on how the Plaintiff holds himself out to the public regarding his disability and the issues presented by him in his Complaint. Whether a person self-identifies as disabled is relevant to her status as “disabled” under the ADA. See Thompson v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:03CV33, 2006 WL 89931, at *6 n.13 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2006) (employee self-identification forms prima facie evidence “disabled” for employer discrimination claim). More importantly, Plaintiff’s admission or failure to assert therein that he is disabled would be both relevant and admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). As such, how Plaintiff does or does not identify when providing information to his insurers is relevant evidence of him status as a disabled person in this action or in the Other Federal Court Actions, and therefore should be produced. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 14 of 43 12 REQUEST NO. 11: All engagement letters or agreements with any counsel representing you in this action or in any of the Other Federal Court Actions for services rendered or costs incurred in those proceedings. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: Plaintiff’s engagement letter is patently relevant to the issue of his requested relief. Plaintiff, in seeking an award of attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12005, Compl. at 12, has placed into dispute the hours reasonably billed by his attorney and his attorney’s reasonable hourly rate, see Bjorklund v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 118 F. App’x 624, 626 (3d Cir. 2004) (awarding adjusted lodestar figure under § 12005). As the U.S. Supreme Court has observed: “The presence of a pre-existing fee agreement may aid in determining reasonableness. ‘The fee quoted to the client or the percentage of the recovery agreed to is helpful in demonstrating attorney’s fee expectations when he accepted the case.’” Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 93 (1989) (citation omitted). Given Plaintiff’s demand for an award of attorneys’ fees, there can be no dispute that his engagement letter is relevant and therefore discoverable. Further, engagement letters and billing records are generally not privileged. See Levy v. Senate of Pa., 65 A.3d 361, 373 (Pa. 2013) (“[F]ee agreements and billing records are generally subject to disclosure.” (citation omitted)). This rule is particularly true where, as here, the party asserting the privilege is seeking an award of attorneys’ fees. See Saint Luke’s Hosp. of Bethlehem v. Vivian, 99 A.3d 534, 549 (Pa. Super. 2014) (affirming trial court’s statement that “that attorney-client privilege provides no basis to object to discovery into matters fairly related to reasonableness, vel non, of legal fees being claimed as damages in the present actions”). While Plaintiff may redact privileged material imbedded in such fee disclosures—e.g., descriptions of legal services addressing “the client’s motive for seeking counsel, legal advice, strategy, or other confidential communications undeniably protected”— Plaintiff cannot assert a general objection to the production of such documents. Levy, 65 A.3d at 374. Moreover, such Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 15 of 43 13 evidence may be relevant in determining the extent of counsel’s services directly related to this action, given the other seven cases brought by Plaintiff using the same counsel, based on substantially identical facts and pleadings. Thus, any engagement letter(s) in this action and in the Other Federal Court Actions is highly relevant. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff asserts that no engagement letter exists, Plaintiff’s counsel may be in violation of his ethical duties. Rule 1.5(b) of Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct states that “[w]hen the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.” (emphasis added). Further, to the extent a fee is contingent, Rule 1.5(c) provides that it must always be in writing. In short, the lack of an engagement letter in this case can only be explained by a controlling, non-contingency engagement letter from an earlier matter, or alternatively by an ethics violation. If the former is true, then said engagement letter is relevant and discoverable just as would be a current letter—namely, as evidence of a reasonable rate for attorneys’ fees. REQUEST NO. 12: Any evidence of payments made by you or on your behalf for any invoices, bills or statements that you received from any counsel representing you in this action or in any of the Other Federal Court Actions for services rendered or costs incurred in any of those proceedings. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: DEFENDANTS WILL WITHDRAW THIS REQUEST AT THIS TIME, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THEIR RIGHT TO ASSERT SAME AT THE TIME THAT PLAINTIFF MAKES APPLICATION FOR HIS COUNSEL FEES AND COSTS. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 16 of 43 14 REQUEST NO. 13: Any books, tapes, or other materials or evidence of training or education about the ADA in general, and about the causes of action for which you have asserted claims in this action or in any of the Other Federal Court Actions. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: This evidence relates to what knowledge Plaintiff has regarding the ADA, and how that bears on his decisions to park at the various facilities in question and ultimately file thirty Complaints in the Pennsylvania Federal Courts, while being represented by the same counsel. It also might bear on his motivation and standing to bring the actions. See, supra. REQUEST NO. 14: All documents that you contend support your claims against any of the Defendants, or otherwise allegedly evidence the violation(s) by any of the Defendants of the ADA as alleged, in this action, and in the Other Federal Court Actions. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS: Just as with the definition of “ADA”, supra., counsel is obfuscating the question. The question is in two parts. The first part—dealing with the claims of Plaintiff against the Defendants—has nothing to do with the objection posed. Regarding the objection itself, the question posed is seeking evidence of the violation by any of the Defendants of the ADA or, alternatively, violations of the ADA by any of the Defendants. The use of the terms is neither ambiguous nor confusing. Further, for all of the reasons already provided, the evidence Plaintiff has identified with regard to any alleged violations of the ADA in the Other Federal Court Actions is equally relevant in this case given the virtual identity of the respective claims, etc. Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 17 of 43 15 Conclusion For all of the reasons stated above, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion to compel discovery and enter an Order in the form attached. Respectfully submitted, COZEN O’CONNOR Date: November 15, 2017 /s/ F. Warren Jacoby By: F. Warren Jacoby (PA 10012) One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-665-2000 215-665-2013 (fax) Attorneys for Defendants Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 18 of 43 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CERTIFICATION OF F. WARREN JACOBY PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 26.1(f) GEORGE GOODRITZ, Plaintiff, v. CENTRA ASSOCIATES, L.P., and E-Z PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 2:17-cv-2172-PBT I, F. Warren Jacoby, Esquire, am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Pennsylvania and in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I hereby certify pursuant to Local Rule 26.1(f) that I attempted to resolve this discovery dispute by communicating with counsel for Plaintiff, George Goodritz, demanding that Plaintiff respond to Defendants’ outstanding discovery and provide the requested documents. Please see the attached Motion and Brief relating to the outcome of such efforts. COZEN O’CONNOR /s/ F. Warren Jacoby F. Warren Jacoby, Esquire Dated: November 15, 2017 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 19 of 43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, F. Warren Jacoby, certify that on this 15th day of November, 2017, the foregoing Motion to Compel and Brief were served via the court’s electronic filing system and electronic mail upon the following: Franklin J. Rooks, Jr. Jared A. Jacobson Jacobson & Rooks, LLC 525 Route 73 North Suite 104 Marlton, NJ 08053 /s /F. Warren Jacoby F. Warren Jacoby, Esquire Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 20 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 21 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 22 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 23 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 24 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 25 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 26 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 27 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 28 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 29 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 30 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 31 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 32 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 33 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 34 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 35 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 36 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 37 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 38 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 39 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 40 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 41 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 42 of 43 Case 2:17-cv-02172-PBT Document 17 Filed 11/15/17 Page 43 of 43