1. Whether a law office is subject to the non-dis
crimination 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;

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 3 7(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 con
stitutional 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.

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