Discovery Request for LYNX Documents (2021-09-28) — Complaint - Wall v. CDC

Summary

Exhibit 2, Document 153-2 in Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI, filed September 28, 2021: an email dated Monday, September 6, 2021 from Lucas Wall to David Wood and Monica Kovecses, with the subject Wall v. CDC -- Discovery Request for LYNX Documents. Wall states that, unless LYNX agrees to a consent decree ending its mask mandate or files a cross-claim, he issues a discovery request under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 for documents to prove his claims that LYNX established and enforces a mask mandate on its passengers. The numbered requests cover a timeline of the mask mandate, meeting records, consultation with disability-rights advocates, passenger complaints, the Riders Code of Conduct and compliance with Fla. Stat. § 252.38(4)(c). The email states that Rule 34 requires a response within 30 days and closes with /s/ Lucas Wall, plaintiff.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

5596448.1

E
X
H
I
B
I
T

2

EXHIBIT 2

Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 153-2   Filed 09/28/21   Page 1 of 3 PageID 4870

From: Lucas Wall <lucas.wall@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 7:46 AM
To: Wood, David (Ptnr-Orl) <david.wood@akerman.com>; Kovecses, Monica (Assoc-Orl)
<monica.kovecses@akerman.com>
Subject: Wall v. CDC -- Discovery Request for LYNX Documents
Dear Mr. Wood and Ms. Kovecses:

Unless your client, Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (d/b/a “LYNX”), agrees to quickly enter
into a consent decree to immediately terminate its mask mandate for all passengers and/or file a cross-
claim against the Federal Defendants, my position is that discovery is now available since this case is
exempt from a Case Management Report and scheduling order.

Therefore, I issue this discovery request pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 for documents necessary to prove my
claims in the Complaint that LYNX illegally established and enforces a mask mandate on its passengers.

I request production of the following documents, preferably in electronic PDF format:

1. A timeline of LYNX’s establishment of a mask mandate, supported by documents requested below. When
did LYNX first adopt a mask mandate? Who adopted it? What legal authority was cited for the mask
mandate? Was it approved by the board of directors? How has the mask mandate changed, if at all, since
its original adoption? What date did LYNX first place placards on the sides of buses indicating it was
enforcing a mask mandate? Please include other key dates such as enforcement guidance issued to LYNX
bus drivers and other personnel, etc.

2. All documents including but not limited to memorandums, notes, minutes, call transcripts, and lists of
meeting dates and attendees (in person, telephone, videoconference, and other forms of meetings)
concerning any LYNX mask mandate, proposed mask mandate, and consideration of exemptions for
passengers with disabilities who can’t tolerate covering their sources of oxygen. Please identify all
participants in these meetings, calls, videoconferences, etc. by name, title, and organization represented if
not LYNX.

3. All documents similar to those enumerated in #2 related to LYNX’s consultation with disability-rights
advocates, both individuals and organizations, concerning mask requirements. Please identify all
participants in these consultations by name, title, and organization represented.

4. All reports received by LYNX via its employees, customers, and others in 2020 and 2021 concerning
alleged passenger violations of the mask mandate. Please indicate at minimum name of complainant; name
and contact information (mailing address, e-mail address, and/or telephone number) of passenger alleged
to be in violation; date and location of incident (include bus route number if aboard a bus); description of
incident; and what action LYNX took on the complaint (also specify whether LYNX reported the incident to
the Transportation Security Administration for all complaints received on Feb. 1, 2021, and thereafter).

5. All documents received by LYNX in 2020 and 2021 concerning passengers complaining about LYNX’s mask
requirement. Include all contact information provided by the complainant such as mailing address, e-mail
address, and/or telephone number.

6. The current version of LYNX’s Riders Code of Conduct including date approved by the board of directors.

Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 153-2   Filed 09/28/21   Page 2 of 3 PageID 4871

7. If not included in the current Riders Code of Conduct, a memorandum from the board of directors as to
why the mask mandate is not included.

8. All documents concerning LYNX’s communication of its mask mandate to bus drivers and other
employees including enforcement guidance and training.

9. All documents concerning LYNX’s policies on accommodating passengers with disabilities including but
not limited to notices issued to passengers and training memos sent to bus drivers and other LYNX
employees on how to address passengers who can’t medically tolerate wearing a face covering.

10. All documents related to LYNX’s compliance with Fla. Stat. § 252.38(4)(c) including but not limited to
the date upon which LYNX’s board of directors first approved an emergency mask mandate pursuant to this
statute; the dates upon which LYNX’s board of directors renewed the emergency mask mandate (at least
every seven days pursuant to the statute); the date upon which the emergency mask mandate expires (not
to exceed 42 days from date of first enactment pursuant to the statute); and all memorandums, notes,
minutes, call transcripts, and lists of meeting dates and attendees (in person, telephone, videoconference,
and other forms of meetings) related to all board actions taken pursuant to emergency mask mandates
adopted pursuant to the statute.

Rule 34 requires a response within 30 days. If you believe it will take more than 30 days to produce the
requested documents and information, please provide an estimate of how long it's expected for LYNX to
comply. Thank you.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g), I certify that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief formed
after a reasonable inquiry that this request is: A) consistent with the rules and warranted by existing law or
by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law;
B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly
increase the cost of litigation; and C) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive.

/s/ Lucas Wall
Lucas Wall, plaintiff
435 10th St., NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: 202-351-1735
E-Mail: Lucas.Wall@yahoo.com

Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 153-2   Filed 09/28/21   Page 3 of 3 PageID 4872

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.153.2.pdf

Size

99,128 bytes

SHA-256

5008b30cb2b8ad70c25fb64d5344bb0d1b233fdfc5deb54bcdf4360c56eac27c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.153.2.pdf

Original

archive.org