Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02648/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02648-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 The parties’ letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 87, 89, 91, 93 and 94.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SPPI-SOMERSVILLE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

TRC COMPANIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-02648 SI

ORDER RE: TESTING ON SUBJECT

PROPERTY

This order addresses the parties’ dispute regarding plaintiffs’ intention to conduct testing on the

property that is the subject of this lawsuit.1 Based upon the Court’s review of the parties’ numerous

letter briefs, it appears that the parties are in agreement on the following: (1) plaintiffs have agreed to

provide defendants with two weeks notice of the investigation; (2) defendants may have representatives

on site at the time of the investigation; and (3) defendants may take samples. The parties dispute (1)

whether, and to what extent, they should be required to engage in a further meet and confer prior to the

investigation; and (2) whether plaintiffs should be required to provide additional information, such as

a work plan, regarding the investigation. The parties also appear to disagree on the feasibility or

desirability of a joint investigation, and whether defendants will take separate samples or the parties will

take split samples.

 The Court finds that an additional exchange of information, and further meet and confer, is

necessary to allow the parties to finalize details surrounding the investigation. The Court agrees with

Case 3:04-cv-02648-SI Document 95 Filed 06/15/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

plaintiffs, however, that the schedule proposed by defendants is too leisurely, particularly since the

parties are largely in agreement about the major issues. In its reply letter brief, CCWS proposes that

plaintiffs submit to defendants a “specific description of the scope of the investigation” as well as “any

specific steps which plaintiffs propose for the preservation of evidence.” The Court finds that CCWS’s

proposal is reasonable, as it accommodates plaintiffs’ concern about protecting information from the

work plan that is potentially protected by the attorney work product doctrine, and also should provide

defendants with information sufficient to meaningfully assess the scope of the testing. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Within five days from the filing date of this order, plaintiffs shall submit to defendants

a specific description of the scope of the investigation, as well as any steps that plaintiffs

propose for the preservation of evidence. Plaintiffs’ description shall also detail where

the trenches and pits will be located, as well as the expected length, width and depth of

these excavations. If defendants are dissatisfied with the specificity of plaintiffs’

description of the location of the investigation, defendants shall provide plaintiffs and

their consultant with access to the property prior to the investigation to allow the

consultant to specifically select the site to be investigated;

2. Within five days of receipt of the information listed above, the parties shall meet and

confer in order to resolve all issues related to the proposed investigation, including:

a. granting plaintiffs access to the property

b. defendants’ ability to observe the work being carried out by plaintiffs

c. the ability of defendants to take samples and/or split samples, and

d. feasibility of conducting a joint investigation; and 

3. If, after completing the meet and confer process, the parties are unable to resolve all

issues relating to plaintiffs’ investigation, the parties shall submit a single joint letter

brief of no longer than 3 pages setting forth the disputed issues and the parties’

Case 3:04-cv-02648-SI Document 95 Filed 06/15/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 The Court declines to adopt CCWS’s proposed language authorizing any party to “record

through any reasonable means” the meet and confer. If any party wishes to “record” the meet and

confer, either by a tape recorder or with a court reporter, the parties are directed to discuss the matter

and attempt to reach agreement on the issue.

3

positions.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June15, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02648-SI Document 95 Filed 06/15/07 Page 3 of 3