Whether a law office is subject to the non-discrimination requirements of the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability. § 12182 (a). This appeal arose from the District Court’s grant of sanctions and dismissal of the entire suit with prejudice. However, the epicenter is concerning the due process right of the disabled to accessible depositions, their right to equal access to the court and equal protections of laws. Unlike the Tenth and Third Circuit, the Seventh and Fifth Circuits added a limitation to the plain meaning of “service establishment” that appears nowhere in ADA. On appeal, petitioners challenged ; the denial of a protective order that was essential to preserve asserted privileges under the First and Fifth Amendments, but the Seventh Circuit applied the collateral bar rule holding that a party who disobeys a judicial order may not challenge the validity of the original order. Here, however, there was no citation of contempt under either Federal Rule 37 or 42 and the due process concerns and safeguards associated with criminal contempt were not met. Petitioners are calling into question the jurisdiction of the courts below to issue such orders, and the constitutionality of Federal Rules and ADA as they came in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution and with decisions of the Supreme Court. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether a law office is subject to the non-discrimination requirements of the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq., (the “ADA”) when it conducts a deposition of “any” qualified individual with a disability under the statute; ii : 2. Whether the earlier statute, Federal Rule 26 that covers a more generalized spectrum and broad universe of potential litigants, trumps a later statute of Title III of ADA that covers a narrow, precise, and specific subject and protects a particularized group of litigants. 3. Whether appellate courts can impose the collateral bar rule on appeal from the sanction with dismissal under Federal Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) without an order of civil or criminal contempt and prohibit a party from challenging the validity of the discovery order and whether such order could withstand constitutional challenges of the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights; 4. Whether Magistrate’s discovery order was transparently invalid and whether petitioners should ‘ be permitted to defend the Rule 37 sanction on these and other grounds stated in this petition.