Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05058/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05058-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware 

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 

No.: C-07-5058 WHA -1-

[Proposed] Order After 5/29/2008 Discovery Hearing 

John Lynn Smith (SBN 154657) 

(E-Mail: jlsmith@reedsmith.com) 

Julia C. Butler (SBN 199133) 

(E-Mail: jbutler@reedsmith.com) 

Joonsik Maing (SBN 240927) 

Email: jmaing@reedsmith.com 

REED SMITH LLP

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2400 

Oakland, CA 94612-3572 

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 2084 

Oakland, CA 94604-2084 

Telephone: +1 510 763 2000 

Facsimile: +1 510 273 8832 

Attorneys for Defendant 

REDWOOD LANDFILL, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, a 

non-profit corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

REDWOOD LANDFILL INC. and DOES 1-10, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

No.: C-07-5058 WHA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER 5/29/2008 

DISCOVERY HEARING 

Honorable William Alsup 

A discovery hearing was held in this matter on May 29, 2008 for consideration of Plaintiff 

Northern California River Watch’s (“Plaintiff”) request for an order compelling production of data 

and results from split samples taken during Plaintiff’s February 21, 2008 site visit [Docket No. 49] 

and Defendant Redwood Landfill, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) request for an order quashing or limiting the 

scope of third-party document subpoenas [Docket No. 51]. Jack Silver and Joseph J. Bernhaut of the 

Law Office of Jack Silver appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Julia C. Butler of Reed Smith LLP 

appeared on behalf of Defendant. Having fully considered the parties’ requests for discovery relief, 

and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

Case 3:07-cv-05058-WHA Document 55 Filed 06/03/08 Page 1 of 2
REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware 

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 

No.: C-07-5058 WHA –2–

[Proposed] Order After 5/29/2008 Discovery Hearing 

Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling Defendant to produce the data and results from 

split samples taken by Defendant’s expert consultant during Plaintiff’s February 21, 2008 site visit 

(“samples results”) is DENIED. The sample results are protected by the attorney work product 

doctrine. However, if Defendant intends to use or rely on the sample results in dispositive motions 

or at trial in this matter, Defendant must notify Plaintiff by 12:00 p.m. on July 3, 2008, via letter 

attaching the sample results in question. If Defendant does not produce the sample results to 

Plaintiff by 12:00 p.m. on July 3, 2008, Defendant is barred from using or relying on the sample 

results in dispositive motions or at trial of this matter. 

With respect to Defendant’s request that this Court quash or limit the scope of third-party 

document subpoenas, Defendant is ordered to further meet and confer with Plaintiff on this issue. 

Plaintiff shall prepare a more specific list of the documents sought via subpoena and Defendants 

shall prepare a list of document categories they believe should be excepted from production. The 

parties shall then meet and confer in person on or before June 9, 2008. If the parties have not 

reached agreement as to the scope of the subpoenas by June 9, 2008, Defendant shall have one week 

(up to and including June 16, 2008) to file a motion for protective order or motion to quash. The 

third parties served with the subpoenas at issue are excused from complying with the subpoenas until 

there is either (1) agreement between the parties as to the categories of documents requested by the 

subpoenas; or (2) an order by the Court regarding the subpoenas. As soon as an agreement is 

reached or an order entered by the Court, Plaintiff shall notify the third parties of same and shall 

allow the third parties a reasonable amount of time to comply with the subpoenas as modified (such 

reasonable amount of time to be determined by the Plaintiff in conjunction with each of the third 

parties). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: June __, 2008 

_______________________________________ 

Honorable William H. Alsup 

United States District Court Judge 

3

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:07-cv-05058-WHA Document 55 Filed 06/03/08 Page 2 of 2