Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02382/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02382-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

C-07-2382 ORDER RE 180, 181 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Howard McConnell, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Pacificorp, Inc.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 07-2382 WHA (JL)

ORDER

The Court reviewed the parties’ separate statements regarding a discovery dispute

over discovery responses from Plaintiff Michael Hudson (Docket Nos. 180 and 181).

Defendants seek an order from the Court compelling Hudson to fully answer Defendants’

Interrogatories First Set #11, Second Set # 1-5, and Third Set # 1, and produce all

responsive documents within three days, and be deposed about them, or suffer evidentiary

sanctions, including preclusion of his claim for damages.

Plaintiff Michael Hudson, a Bay Area commercial fishermen, alleges that

PacifiCorp’s operation of dams nearly 200 miles up the Klamath River has caused him to

catch less salmon. Hudson, owns three businesses. In addition to fishing, he and his wife

jointly own and operate a farmer’s market business, Hudson Fish, which sells salmon

caught by Hudson and other fishermen. He also is a trained electrician, and has an

electrical contracting business.

Case 3:07-cv-02382-WHA Document 182 Filed 07/15/08 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

C-07-2382 ORDER RE 180, 181 Page 2 of 3

During times he is unable to fish, Hudson works for Hudson Fish. He is not paid

hourly, but rather shares in the increased profits resulting from his labor. Defendants argue

that he has mitigated, or could mitigate, his alleged economic damages, either through

Hudson Fish or electrical/mechanical contracting. Hudson Fish has more than tripled the

price of its salmon as supply has decreased. Defendants contend it is uncertain that

Hudson has suffered any financial loss from catching fewer salmon. Defendants therefore

contend that Hudson Fish records are relevant to both mitigation and lost profits.

Plaintiffs object on the basis that Hudson Fish Company is owned and operated by

Michael Hudson’s wife. They concede that Mr. Hudson has a duty to minimize his

damages. They argue that Defendant does not thereby acquire the right to obtain

documents and compel interrogatory responses regarding entirely separate and distinct

businesses. Anheuser-Busch v. Starley (1946) 28 Cal. 2d 347, 349. They contend that Mr.

Hudson’s obligation to minimize his commercial salmon fishing damages requires him only

(a) to fish commercially for some other type of fish, or (b) seek federal disaster relief

funding. Id. Mr. Hudson has produced documents regarding his receipt of disaster relief

funding, and has explained at his deposition that he cannot commercially fish for other

types of fish because he does not have the proper equipment or knowledge necessary to

fish for other types of fish.

Analysis

Defendants offer evidence from Hudson’s own deposition that Schedule C tax

returns and summaries combine the income and expenses for both his fishing business

and Hudson Fish. The two boxes of receipts that he produced to Defendants commingle

receipts for the two businesses as well as his personal tax records. Hudson explained “

You see, [my wife and I are] kind of joined at the hip. The farmers’ market business is . . . a

big part of what I do. You cannot split the two [businesses].” Hudson depo. 187:21-24.

Case 3:07-cv-02382-WHA Document 182 Filed 07/15/08 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

C-07-2382 ORDER RE 180, 181 Page 3 of 3

Conclusion and Order

The Court finds that the income and expenses of Hudson’s commercial salmon

fishing business and Hudson Fish Company are commingled. Accordingly, it is

unreasonable to withhold records of other business, discovery of which maybe relevant to

damages and mitigation. Plaintiff Hudson shall respond fully to Defendants’ discovery

requests within three days of the date of this Order, and make himself available for

deposition, prior to July 25, 2008, the discovery cut-off in this case, at the risk of monetary

or evidentiary sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 15, 2008

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\07-2382\Order re- 180, 181 .wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02382-WHA Document 182 Filed 07/15/08 Page 3 of 3