Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02275/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02275-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2275 WQH

(BGS)

vs. ORDER

NATIONAL STEEL &

SHIPBUILDING COMPANY;

NATIONAL STEEL &

SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION;

NATIONAL IRON WORKS;

MARTINOLICH SHIP BUILDING

COMPANY; SOUTHWEST

MARINE, INC.; BAE SYSTEMS

SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC.;

SAN DIEGO MARINE

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY;

STAR AND CRESCENT BOAT

COMPANY, a division of

SAN DIEGO MARINE

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY;

STAR AND CRESCENT BOAT

COMPANY; STAR AND CRESCENT

INVESTMENT COMPANY; STAR

AND CRESCENT FERRY

COMPANY; SAN DIEGO MARINE

CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION;

MCCSD; CAMPBELL INDUSTRIES;

SAN DIEGO GAS &

ELECTRIC; UNITED STATES

NAVY; SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT

DISTRICT; and DOES 1-100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

AND COUNTERCLAIMS

- 1 - 09cv2275 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:09-cv-02275-WQH-JLB Document 371 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 7
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

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Objections to Magistrate’s July 19, 2013

Case Management Conference Order Regulating Phase I(B) and Phase II Discovery

filed by Plaintiff City of San Diego (“Objections”). (ECF No. 292). 

I. Background

On October 14, 2009, Plaintiff City of San Diego initiated this action by filing

a Complaint alleging that Defendants are “‘Dischargers’ or ‘Persons Responsible’ for

alleged environmental contamination at the property known as the ‘Shipyard Sediment

Site’ by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region ... in

Tentative Clean Up & Abatement Order No. R9-2005-0126....” (ECF No. 1 at 5). 

Plaintiff contends that Defendants are “jointly and severally responsible for alleged

property damage....” Id. Defendants have filed counterclaims against the Plaintiff,

cross-claims against each other, and supplemental cross-claims. 

On July 15, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an order adopting a phased

discovery plan proposed by the parties. (ECF No. 125). Phase I discovery was limited

to certain categories of information, and was divided into three segments:

C Phase I(a), a seven-month phase during which each party served limited

initial disclosures and was permitted to issue ‘Interrogatories, Requests for

Admission, Requests for Production of Documents and Things.’ 

C Phase I(b), fact depositions limited to the topics addressed in Phase I. 

C and Phase I(c), court-ordered mediation during which no discovery would

take place. 

Id. at 3-5. Phase I(c) mediation began in May 2011, and continued through June 2013. 

On June 24, 25, and 26, 2013, the parties attended a Mandatory Settlement Conference

with the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 279). A settlement was not reached, and the

Magistrate Judge scheduled a Case Management Conference to address the timing and

scope of Phase II of discovery. On June 27, 2013, the Magistrate Judge ordered the

parties to submit a joint discovery plan for Phase II of discovery. (ECF No. 280 at 2). 

- 2 - 09cv2275 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:09-cv-02275-WQH-JLB Document 371 Filed 11/07/13 Page 2 of 7
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

The parties were unable to agree on a joint discovery plan for Phase II of

discovery. Plaintiff, Defendant San Diego Unified Port District, Defendant Campbell

Industries, and Defendant Star & Crescent Boat Company jointly requested a discovery

schedule that allowed for fourteen months to complete fact discovery, the opportunity

to serve 100 Interrogatories, 100 Requests for Admission, and 100 Requests for

Production of Documents, 20 fact witness depositions per party, and the opportunity to

obtain subpoenas. (ECF No. 284). Defendant National Steel & Shipbuilding Company

(“NASSCO”) and Defendant BAE Systems jointly requested a discovery schedule that

allowed for four months to complete fact discovery, limiting depositions to 10 per party

(including third party depositions), and permitting 50 Interrogatories, 50 Requests for

Production of Documents, and 50 Requests for Admission per party. Id. at 26-41. 

On July 19, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Case Management Conference

Order regulating Phase I(b) and Phase II of discovery (“July 19, 2013 Order”). (ECF

No. 290). The Order allowed for four months to complete fact discovery (from August

23, 2013 through December 23, 2013). Id. at 2. The Order limited each party to 50

Interrogatories, 50 Requests for Production of Documents and Things, and 50 Requests

for Admission. Id. at 3. The Order limited each party to a total of 10 non-expert

depositions. Id. 

On August 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s July 19,

2013 Case Management Conference Order, requesting that this Court “expand the scope

of Phase II fact discovery.” (ECF No. 292 at 26). 

On August 13, 2013, Defendant Star & Crescent Boat Company filed a Notice

of Non-Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s July 19, 2013 Order.1

 (ECF No. 294). 

1

 Defendant Star & Crescent Boat Company later stated in its Notice of Non- Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s July 19, 2013 Order that it only joined with Plaintiff and Defendant Campbell Industries for the proposed discovery schedule “because initially they were the only parties proposing additional fact discovery.” (ECF No. 294 at 2). Defendant Star & Crescent Boat Company supports a more limited time

- 3 - 09cv2275 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:09-cv-02275-WQH-JLB Document 371 Filed 11/07/13 Page 3 of 7
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

On August 20, 2013, Defendant San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”)

filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections, requesting that the Objections be overruled. 

(ECF No. 297). On August 20, 2013, Defendants BAE Systems and NASSCO jointly

filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objections. (ECF No. 296). On August 27, 2013,

Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of its Objections. (ECF No. 301). 

On October 10, 2013, Defendants NASSCO, BAE Systems, and Campbell

Industries filed an Ex Parte Application to Stay Litigation and to Extend All Deadlines

Due to the Government Shutdown. (ECF No. 350). On October 17, 2013, this Court

granted the Ex Parte Application in part and extended all deadlines by no less than 17

days. (ECF No. 360). On October 24, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued an Amended

Case Management Conference Order extending all deadlines by no less than 17 days,

and extending the fact discovery deadline from December 23, 2013 to January 20, 2014. 

 (ECF No. 361 at 2). 

II. Applicable Standard

A district court judge may refer resolution of pretrial issues to a magistrate judge

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). As part of these powers, magistrate judges are

empowered to modify case management deadlines. Local Rule 72.1(h); 28 §

636(b)(1)(B). Federal Rule 26(b)(2)(A) specifically authorizes judges to modify the

extent and frequency of any discovery method. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A). A district

court judge may reconsider any pretrial matter resolved by a magistrate judge only

“where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or

contrary to the law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

III. Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff objects to the limits on the scope of discovery and accelerated time line

for discovery imposed by the Magistrate Judge’s July 19, 2013 Order. Plaintiff

contends that the Order “amount[s] to a denial of the opportunity to gather all the facts

line for fact discovery. Id. 

- 4 - 09cv2275 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:09-cv-02275-WQH-JLB Document 371 Filed 11/07/13 Page 4 of 7
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

necessary to a fair presentation of the [Plaintiff]’s case.” (ECF No. 301 at 6). Plaintiff

asserts that the limitations are “contrary to the scope of discovery permitted under the

federal civil rules.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff specifically asserts that the numeric limits of ten

depositions per party, 50 Interrogatories, 50 Requests for Production of Documents, and

50 Requests for Admission, “will not be sufficient to allow [Plaintiff] to pursue all the

fact discovery it needs to address the factors relevant to CERCLA cost allocation.” 

(ECF No. 292-1 at 22-24). 

Plaintiff contends that the four-month time line for fact discovery set by the July

19, 2013 Order is unreasonable and prejudicial. (ECF No. 292-1 at 20). Plaintiff

contends that the discovery conducted through Phase I and during the administrative

proceedings was limited and did not address all the factors “that can and should be

considered in assessing allocation of liability under CERCLA.” Id. at 21. Plaintiff

contends that the evidence collected by the Regional Board was “aimed at determining

whether a particular entity was responsible for current or past discharges to the Site–

not at determining that party’s proportionate contributions of contaminants to the Site,

nor at evaluating any party’s comparative culpability in relation to another party.” Id.

at 8. Plaintiff contends that “[a]ll of the evidence needed for the highly fact-intensive

process of assessing the parties’ comparative liability under CERCLA for causing or

contributing to the contamination of the Site must therefore be gathered through the

discovery process in this action.” Id. 

Defendants BAE Systems and NASSCO contend that the Regional Board

conducted a fact-gathering process that spanned several years, resulting in “an extensive

Administrative Record.” (ECF No. 296 at 4). Defendants BAE Systems and NASSCO

contend that the Magistrate Judge’s July 19, 2013 Order properly takes this discovery

into account. (ECF No. 296 at 4-5). Defendants BAE Systems and NASSCO concede

that the Regional Board’s investigation did not involve an inquiry into cost allocation,

but contend that documents related to the parties’ discharge activities would still be

relevant to any proportional cost analysis. Id. at 5. Defendants BAE Systems and

- 5 - 09cv2275 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:09-cv-02275-WQH-JLB Document 371 Filed 11/07/13 Page 5 of 7
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

NASSCO contend that, “[t]he Discovery Order was the product of substantial briefing

and argument by the parties, and the Court’s findings as to the breadth of Phase I

discovery.” Id. at 8. “The Discovery Order provides a sufficient mechanism to

complete any remaining fact discovery through the use of limited written discovery and

depositions.” Id. 

Defendant SDG&E contends that the factual record developed through the

administrative proceedings and Phase I of discovery contains evidence relevant to

CERCLA allocation. (ECF No. 297 at 2). 

III. Ruling of the Court

Rule 26(b)(1) provides that: 

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense– including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. 

Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The scope of discovery permitted under the civil rules is

“broadly construed” in order to ensure that the interests of justice are served in civil

litigation. Babbit, et al. v. Albertson’s, Inc., No. C-92-1883, 1992 WL 605652, at *5

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 1992) (citing Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978));

Shoen v, Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993) (wide access to relevant facts serves

the integrity and fairness of the judicial process by promoting the search for the truth). 

“Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to

proper litigation.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947). For this reason, “it

is well established that courts must employ a liberal discovery standard in keeping with

the spirit and purpose of the discovery rules.” Wrangen v. Pennsylvania Lumbermans

Mut. Ins. Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2008); see also Duke v. Univ. of

Texas, 729 F.2d 994, 997 (5th Cir. 1984) (trial judge’s order denying discovery is abuse

of discretion when it denies a party adequate opportunity to conduct meaningful

- 6 - 09cv2275 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:09-cv-02275-WQH-JLB Document 371 Filed 11/07/13 Page 6 of 7
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

discovery); Coughlin v. Lee, 946 F.2d 1152, 1158-60 (5th Cir. 1991) (court of appeals

reversed district court’s discovery limitation, concluding that district court failed to

adhere to liberal spirit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) in making determinations of relevance);

Williams v. City of Dothan, 745 F.2d 1406, 1425 (11th Cir. 1984) (trial court’s

protective order precluding discovery of historical background information vacated

when information was clearly relevant to issues of case and opponent made no showing

of significant burden in complying with discovery request). 

Having reviewed the record, the contentions of all parties, and the applicable law,

the Court finds that the July 19, 2013 Order (and the October 24, 2013 Amended Order)

do not allow for a scope of discovery or time line for discovery that affords Plaintiff

adequate opportunity to discover all facts necessary to a fair presentation of its case, as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

It is HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections to the Case Management

Conference Order Regulating Phase I(b) and Phase II Discovery and Other Pretrial

Proceedings (ECF No. 292) filed by Plaintiff City of San Diego are SUSTAINED. The

Case Management Conference Order Regulating Phase I(b) and Phase II Discovery and

Other Pretrial Proceedings (ECF No. 290), and the Amended Case Management

Conference Order (ECF No. 361) are VACATED. The Magistrate Judge shall issue a

second amended case management conference order. 

DATED: November 7, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 7 - 09cv2275 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:09-cv-02275-WQH-JLB Document 371 Filed 11/07/13 Page 7 of 7