Auday Maki and Salwa Atwan v. William Laakko, Beverly Laakko and Liisa Laakko, 88 F.3d 361 (1996)

Citation: Auday Maki and Salwa Atwan v. William Laakko, Beverly Laakko and Liisa Laakko, 88 F.3d 361 (1996)
Parent Document: Auday Maki and Salwa Atwan v. William Laakko, Beverly Laakko and Liisa Laakko, 88 F.3d 361 (1996)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1996-08-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/721336/auday-maki-and-salwa-atwan-v-wil... ↗

Full Text

1,117 chars

This allegation of error might carry some force if the Makis could explain why the depositions of the current and former tenants, which were delayed pending a status conference on June 28, would furnish the missing facts to complete their prima facie case for discrimination. Instead, counsel for the Makis explains that this further discovery might uncover proof of disparate impact. That is, the depositions might uncover that the Laakkos afforded even more favorable treatment to renters with different ethnic backgrounds or family statuses. Since this would still not establish how the Makis were adversely affected by the Laakkos, given the foregoing analysis of the parties’ intentions with regard to ending their relationship, any further discovery would not have affected the summary judgment decision. In any event, the court explicitly ruled, in an order of July 8, 1994, that it had not issued any protective order, and that plaintiffs’ unsupported claim to the contrary could be sanctionable. The discovery dispute will therefore not stand as grounds to disturb the summary judgment decision on appeal. VI

Other Sections in This Document (61)

Full Text