In May, I wrote that I filed suit against Insomniac, the subsidiary of Live Nation that puts on Electric Daisy Carnival (EDC), a 3-day music festival in Nevada that is the largest in the country. The basis of the suit is that Insomniac prohibits all over-the-counter medicines from entering its festival, then sells the same medicines inside the festival at an inflated price, and additionally requires anyone bringing in prescription medications to show their prescription during a “consult” with a “safety officer” who has no medical qualifications nor any legal obligation to keep your info private. All in the name of the “war on drugs,” of course.
Insomniac’s attorney, Greg Hurley of Sheppard Mullin, started off our lovely relationship with an unexpected 8:30 AM phone call yelling about how law students don’t know what they’re talking about and shouldn’t file lawsuits. (Thanks for the tip, Greg!) The tone of our relationship has continued to this day, with the Sheppard Mullin team refusing to participate in the case like good-faith officers of the court until motions for sanctions or other court intervention is threatened, and even just this month told me I’d be sanctioned for my frivolous lawsuit if I refuse to dismiss it. (Good luck with that!)
Greg’s hot-headed temper notwithstanding, the interesting part of the legal side of the case is that Insomniac has doubled down, arguing to the court in a motion for summary judgment that what it’s doing is perfectly acceptable, and that if I don’t publicly disclose what my medical conditions are that require medicine (as they have, thus far, refused to agree to any confidentiality), or testify that I’ve never taken an illegal drug in my lifetime, I must just be a drug dealer:
In responses to Defendants’ discovery, Plaintiff has refused to disclose a medical condition impacted by these 2016 policies. Moreover, as Plaintiff has
refused to disclose whether or not Plaintiff uses, or intends to use, illegal drugs, it is reasonable to assume that this is merely an attempt to have a federal court strike a reasonable safety policy designed to protect against deaths from illegal drugs. It is hard to envision a clearer abuse of the ADA statute and the jurisdiction of this Court.
It is simply astounding that after filing suit over them treating those with medicine like drug dealers at the gates of EDC, their attorneys now give me the same treatment at the courthouse. The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect those with disabilities against being denied full access to public accommodations to whatever extent is reasonably possible. Confiscating or harassing people over their medication at the festival gate is exactly the kind of thing the ADA prohibits.
I fully expect their motion to be denied.
Corbett v. Insomniac – Motion for Summary Judgment (.pdf)
Corbett v. Insomniac – Motion for Summary Judgment Opposition (.pdf)
Professional Troublemaker ® 
With all due respect it isn’t astounding that they have taken such an aggressive stance against you – it is business as usual. I noticed an interesting thing when doing battle with the greedy corporate world. The more right you are the more of a fight you can expect. This point is more than aptly illustrated in the film The Insider. Even PBS’s legal team came against their own internal policies for fear of being sued by Big Tobacco. You are in for fight my friend. But then you already know that!
Companies will always fight hard for their own interests, but it is often in their interest to settle rather than pay insane attorney’s fees to defend a case that they may very well lose. I think there are 2 issues causing them to stand their ground: 1) they saw “pro se” and assumed they’d have an easy case, and 2) I think they are concerned that the local government will pull their permit to hold the event if they relax their gate policy to something reasonable.
Agreed. And they like to wear people out.
hehe clearly they don’t know me very well, then 😉
sounds like business as usual. is legal assholery likely to change under Trump, or will it get worse?
I don’t expect Trump will have much effect on tort reform. But, I do expect there will be a lot more civil rights issues to litigate. 🙂
Just curious, why wouldn’t you disclose your medical condition?
Publicly or to Insomniac? Publicly, because it’s none of anyone’s business! To Insomniac, because they’ve refused to agree to keep it confidential (something which is commonly done in litigation and any reasonable attorney would have agreed to).
Am I understanding this correctly? You want to bring over-the-counter medication into the festival without disclosing a medical condition or documentation? Further, you have an issue with Insomniac offering sale of over-the-counter products and turning a profit at a private event they host? What would be your solution to this issue?
Second part, you have a privacy issue with an unqualified safety “officer” and the privacy of said prescription/medical condition? Somewhat understandable, but what would be your solution to fix this?
First part: Yes, just like every other music festival in the country that allows sealed OTC meds into their festival, I want to be able to enter with whatever medicine I need. And yes, I have an issue with a corporation confiscating my medicine at one point and then selling the same medicine to me later at exorbitant fees.
Second part: Yes, I have a problem discussing my medical condition(s) to anyone who is not my doctor, and especially when those persons are not bound by any non-disclosure laws like HIPAA. Insomniac’s business is putting on music, not being my doctor.
I have attended many festivals and many did not allow OTC meds into the event. You’ll have to define exorbitant fees? Is EDC LV not considered a private event? As an attendee, are you not obligated to follow their rules and guidelines?
No issue with wanting to keep your medical condition private, but there were paramedics and doctor’s on site. Are they not bound by the HIPAA? Were you denied entry with your prescription medication with a written prescription and not given the option to speak to law enforcement or certified medical personnel?
US Border Patrol (DHS) Took Millions in Bribes to Allow Massive Secret Influx of Illegal Drugs and Immigrants:
A big problem on the U.S. border: Corrupt agents:
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2016/12/28/a-big-problem-on-the-u-s-border-corrupt-agents/
BS Warning: AVATAR Robotic Kiosk Ready To Detect Lies In Travelers:
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/12/avatar-robotic-kiosk-will-detect-lies-travelers-future.html
Border Patrol Allowed to Guess People’s Passwords and use Cellbrite to Spy on Their Electronic Devices!
A DHS officer took defendant’s Motorola phone, iPhone, and iPad from a Customs officer at the border when defendant was arrested for importing cocaine in her car. The Motorola phone wasn’t password protected, and it was examined with a Cellebrite device. “The Cellebrite device uses software to capture data which has not been deleted and would be visible to any manual user, including contact lists, pictures, and text messages.” She was questioned. Then the iPhone and iPad, which were password protected, were similarly searched when the officer correctly guessed the password: her birthday. This was a reasonable search under United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) because it was not a forensic search. Assuming the password protection provided an added reasonable expectation of privacy, there was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Lopez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176920 (S.D.Cal. Dec. 20, 2016):
The fact that the iPhone and the iPad were password protected using the Defendant’s date of birth did not transform the Cellebrite search into the type of computer forensic examination used in Cotterman. Even assuming, however, that the password protection on the iPhone and the iPad required additional constitutional protections, any requirement for reasonable suspicion would have been met in this case. The agents were investigating the smuggling of controlled substances into the United States. The agents had a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting” that the devices searched would contain evidence of criminal activity. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S. Ct. 690, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621 (1981). Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the search in this case did not violate Defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.
http://fourthamendment.com/?p=25179