Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01257/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01257-49/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs‟ Motion to Compel further discovery responses from 

Defendant the City of Visalia (“Defendant” or “the City”). (Doc. 362). The Motion was heard on 

February 19, 2016, before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Counsel Christine 

Munroe appeared in person on behalf of Plaintiffs. Counsel Ron Statler appeared by telephone on 

behalf of the Defendant. Having considered the joint statement of the parties, argument presented at 

the hearing, as well as the Court‟s file, Plaintiffs‟ Motion to Compel is GRANTED. 

I. Background

This case arises out of a contamination plume in the soil, gas and groundwater under the City 

of Visalia, California, largely arising from perchloroethylene, a chemical solvent. Plaintiffs bring 

VIOLA M. COPPOLA, et al.,

 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

GREGORY SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-1257-AWI-BAM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO COMPEL FURTHER DOCUMENT 

PRODUCTION

(Doc. 362) 

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 369 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

claims against the City under CERCLA, RCRA and various state claims, including dangerous 

condition of public property. The claims against the City relate to contribution to the contamination 

plumes from its sewer system. These claims arise out of ongoing issues that span a lengthy period of 

time dating back to at least the mid-20th century. 

II. The Discovery Dispute

In this motion, Plaintiffs argue that the City is delaying discovery efforts through a consistent 

pattern of piecemeal production. As further detailed in the parties‟ Joint Statement, after months of 

meet and confer efforts by Plaintiffs and partial production by the City, Plaintiffs contend that it 

remains unclear whether the City has produced all responsive documents to the pending discovery 

requests and whether the City has conducted a good faith search for responsive documents. Based on 

this uncertainty, Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the City to produce all responsive documents 

within the scope of this litigation. Alternatively, to the extent the City lacks responsive documents, 

Plaintiffs ask the City to provide a declaration under penalty of perjury that it has made a good faith 

inquiry to produce all responsive documents within its possession, custody and control, and detailing 

its efforts to locate responsive documents in an effort to comply with Rule 34. Lastly, Plaintiffs also 

request that the Court preclude the City from introducing documents not produced but are responsive 

to these requests at a later date without a stipulation from Plaintiffs. 

In response, the City advises the Court that it has performed thorough and complete search 

efforts. According to the City, the production of documents has taken time due to the nature of the 

document requests and the need to produce discovery spanning decades. Further, while the discovery 

Plaintiffs‟ seek is only marginally relevant to this action, the City has expended substantial resources 

in order to comply with Plaintiffs‟ requests for production. The City proposes that the parties continue 

to meet and confer in order for Plaintiffs to provide more specificity as to the documents they feel 

have not been produced. (Doc. 362 at 8-9). Indeed, on February 18, 2016, the City made available to 

Plaintiffs an additional 20,000 documents for inspection and copying.

///

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 369 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2 of 6
3

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

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and 

permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample items in the 

responding party‟s possession, custody or control: any designated documents or tangible things. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (quotation marks omitted). “Property is deemed within a party‟s „possession, 

custody, or control‟ if the party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to 

obtain the property on demand.” Allen v. Woodford, No. CV-F-05-1104 OWW LJO, 2007 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 11026, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (citing In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 

465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995)); accord Bovarie v. Schwarzenegger, No. 08cv1661 LAB (NLS), 2011 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 17006, 2011 WL 719206, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011); Evans v. Tilton, No. 

1:07CV01814 DLB PC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36953, 2010 WL 1136216, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 

2010). 

In responding to discovery requests, a reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no responsive 

documents or tangible things exist, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1), the responding party should so state with 

sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and 

exercised due diligence, Uribe v. McKesson, No. 08cv1285 DMS (NLS), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

35359, 2010 WL 892093, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010). If responsive documents do exist but the 

responsive party claims lack of possession, control, or custody, the party must so state with sufficient 

specificity to allow the Court (1) to conclude that the responses were made after a case-specific 

evaluation and (2) to evaluate the merit of that response. Ochotorena v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-01525-

LJO-DLB (PC), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25910, 2010 WL 1035774, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010). 

As with other forms of discovery, boilerplate objections do not suffice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B), 

(C); Marti v. Baires, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77962, 2012 WL 2029720 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2012).

IV. DISCUSSION

The heart of this discovery dispute is simple. Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the City‟s 

document production because although the City repeatedly represents that it has “conducted a 

reasonably diligent search for documents in its custody and control” and “produced all responsive 

documents absent privilege,” the City continues to supplement its discovery with documents that 

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 369 Filed 02/23/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

ostensibly should have already been produced. As a result of the piecemeal production, Plaintiffs have

been unable to fully prepare for the City‟s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, causing the deposition to be 

rescheduled twice. Plaintiffs argue that this “trickle down” discovery is prejudicial and contrary to 

discovery Rules 26 and 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The Court agrees. 

Plaintiff‟s briefing provides multiple examples evidencing a distinct pattern of the City‟s 

discovery efforts: Plaintiffs send a meet and confer letter raising concerns about the existence and 

production of documents, or lack thereof that have been produced. The City responds that all 

documents have been produced. Thereafter, the City produces a few more documents with no 

explanation as to why such data was not produced initially. While the Court does not believe that the 

City‟s discovery responses are made in bad faith, it is often unclear, based on Defendant‟s pattern of

responses, whether Defendant has truly conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry into the 

existence of the documents requested, but was unable to comply, as required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34. It is also unclear if Defendant has previously produced all responsive documents. Under 

the discovery rules, the City is obligated to perform a thorough and extensive search for responsive 

discovery, and after those search efforts are complete, Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonably rely on 

Defendant‟s certifications and proceed to the next phase of this litigation with a closed universe of 

documents. 

The City must do more than state that all documents have been produced. A party must make 

a reasonable inquiry to determine whether responsive documents exist, and if they do not, the “party 

should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a 

reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). To comply with the 

discovery rules, the City must confirm that a thorough search was conducted with due diligence; and 

the City must briefly describe the search to allow the Court to determine whether it was reasonable. 

See Marti, 2012 WL 2029720, at *49-50. Under these circumstances, the City has failed to meet its 

burden of showing that a diligent search took place.

Therefore, to respond in accordance with this order, Defendant will have an additional thirty 

days, or until March 25, 2016 to conduct a final search for responsive documents. Responsive 

documents located during this search may be produced at any time before March 25, 2016, but any 

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 369 Filed 02/23/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

documents not produced by March 25 shall be subject to the Court‟s preclusion order. Defendant

should also affirmatively state in a sworn affidavit the measures the City took to complete the search, 

including custodians and methodology. Further, given that Defendant has had nearly a year to 

adequately respond to discovery in this matter, the Court will preclude the City from using any further 

documents produced after this additional search period, unless the City obtains a stipulation from 

Plaintiffs or an Order granting relief from the Court.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed on the record and detailed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs‟ motion to compel further document production from Defendant the City of 

Visalia is GRANTED (Doc. 361); 

2. On or before March 25, 2016, Defendant SHALL complete the additional search for 

responsive documents and produce responsive document as discussed on the record and 

certify that it has produced, pursuant to a reasonable and diligent search, all responsive 

documents within its possession, custody or control;

3. On or before March 21, 2016, Defendant SHALL file a sworn affidavit with the Court 

explaining its search in detail, including, but not limited to, identifying the custodians 

contacted and the methodology used;

4. The Court SETS a Status Conference for February 25, 2016, to discuss the deposition 

date for Defendant‟s 30(b)(6) deponent and whether Defendant has withheld documents 

under a privilege objection. If the parties file a status report prior to the Status 

Conference indicating that the parties have identified a date in mid-April for the City‟s 

deposition and met and conferred about whether the production of a privilege log is 

necessary, the Court will vacate the status conference; 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 369 Filed 02/23/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

5. The Court CONTINUES the Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff between Plaintiffs and 

Defendant the City of Visalia, only, to June 1, 2016 for the purpose of completing the

discovery at issue in this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 369 Filed 02/23/16 Page 6 of 6