Court Finds University President Lacked ‘Relevant’ Knowledge about Possible ADA Violations

Jul 25, 2014

A federal judge from the District of Maryland has granted a request for protective order, effectively barring three plaintiffs, who are suing the University of Maryland for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, from taking the deposition of school president, Wallace D. Loh.
 
In so ruling, the court found that president lacks “relevant” knowledge about the facts in controversy, and that the burden outweighs the benefit.
 
The underlying litigation centered on the claims of Dr. Joseph Innes, Daniel Rinas and Sean Markel, who are deaf. These men sued the University of Maryland, the Board of Regents, and Loh, in his official capacity, for alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 504. The plaintiffs regularly attend sporting events at the Comcast Center and Byrd Stadium, located on the University of Maryland’s main campus in College Park, and attempt to watch videos on the University’s athletic website. They alleged that the defendants failed to provide effective communication for deaf fans both at the games at Byrd Stadium and the Comcast Center and on the University’s athletic website.
 
During discovery, they sought to depose Loh and three others. On April 28, 2014, Loh filed a motion for a protective order, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).
 
The court, in its analysis, noted that the “Fourth Circuit has explained that discovery requests may be limited in appropriate cases:
 
“On its own initiative or in response to a motion for protective order under Rule 26(c), a district court may limit ‘the frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods otherwise permitted’ under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if it concludes that ‘(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2). Further, upon motion of a party and ‘for good cause shown,’ the court in the district in which a deposition is to be taken may ‘make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,’ including an order that the discovery not be had. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Nicholas v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 373 F.3d 537, 543 (4th Cir. 2004).”
 
It then focused on Loh’s argument that requiring his deposition “would be fruitless because, unlike the University of Maryland’s three 30(b)(6) deponents, he has no knowledge of the subjects related to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and even if he did, his testimony would be duplicative of information that the other deponents have already provided.”
 
Loh also declared that he has “no personal knowledge of the captioning capabilities of the Comcast Center, Byrd Stadium, or videos streamed on any website related to the University or the University’s athletic department.”
 
He further argued that “he has not been immersed in the details of specific University initiatives regarding the University’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other similar federal or state laws, including University of Maryland Intercollegiate Athletics’ efforts to maintain best practices regarding the accessibility of Athletic events and websites to handicapped individuals.”
 
Pointing out that because Loh was heavily involved in the school’s move to the Big Ten Conference, the plaintiffs claimed that Loh “knows about ownership of the website, whether the day-to-day activities on the website will be transferred to the Big Ten, whether the Big Ten will pick up costs of the website, and whether the Big Ten has plans to caption the website or at least pay part or all of the costs of captioning.”
 
The plaintiffs next argued that Loh “has relevant information about the importance of athletics and its place at UMCP. . . . To the extent the President of the University believes that athletics is an important part of the University and aids in recruiting students, that information is relevant to the need to make all athletics programming accessible.”
 
But the court found the plaintiffs’ argument “unavailing.”
 
It wrote that “President Loh’s beliefs regarding the importance of athletics at the University of Maryland and its role in student recruitment is not relevant to the instant litigation, in which the plaintiffs allege disability discrimination on the basis of the defendants’ failure to offer effective communication in aural information displayed at Byrd Stadium, the Comcast Center, and the athletic website at the University of Maryland.”
 
The court was also receptive to Loh’s argument that “the burden he faces if deposed ‘greatly outweighs the non-existent benefit that the plaintiffs would enjoy from his deposition.’ He points to his busy travel schedule, meetings with potential donors, and role as the University’s ambassador to outside individuals and institutions.”
 
Joseph Innes, et al. v. The Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland, et al.; D. Md.; Civil Action No. DKC 13-2800, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73425; 5/29/14
 
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Caroline Jackson, LEAD ATTORNEY, National Association of the Deaf, Silver Spring, MD; Joseph B Espo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Baltimore, MD; Brooke E Lierman, Brown Goldstein Levy, Baltimore, MD. (for defendants) Paul D Raschke, LEAD ATTORNEY, Stephanie Wright Shea, Office of the Attorney General, Educational Affairs Division, Baltimore, MD.


 

Articles in Current Issue