Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00707/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00707-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:7604 Clear Air Act (Emission Standards)

---

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

BRENT J. NEWELL, California Bar No. 210,312

LUKE W. COLE, California Bar No. 145,505

AVINASH KAR, California Bar No. 240,190

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

450 Geary Street, Suite 500

San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 346-4179

(415) 346-8723 fax

CAROLINE FARRELL, California Bar No. 202,871

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

1224 Jefferson Street, Suite 25

Delano, CA 93215

(661) 720-9140

(661) 720-9483 fax

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

ASSOCIATION OF IRRITATED RESIDENTS, an

unincorporated association, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FRED SCHAKEL DAIRY, a California Proprietorship,

FRED SCHAKEL, owner and operator, SCHAKEL

FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a California Limited

Partnership, owner and operator, AG RESOURCES III,

a California Limited Liability Company, owner, and

SOUTH LAKES DAIRY, a California General

Partnership, owner and operator,

Defendants,

_____________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:05-CV-00707-OWW-SMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER

ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS AND

RESPONSES TO

INTERROGATORIES

[DOC. 73];

AND 

MOTION TO COMPEL

DEFENDANTS TO PERMIT

INSPECTION OF LAND AND

PROPERTY

[DOC. 72]

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 121 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION 

TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF

LAND AND PROPERTY 1

Whereas, on May 23, 2006, Plaintiff Association of Irritated Residents (“AIR”) served

the Request for Inspection of Land and Property pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure;

Whereas, on May 30, 2006, AIR served the Second Set of Requests for Admission,

Second Set of Requests for Production, and the Second Set of Interrogatories. Defendants Fred

Schakel Dairy, Fred Schakel, Schakel Family Partnership, Ag Resource III, LLC, and South

Lakes Dairy (collectively “Schakel”) served responses thereto on June 29, 2006;

Whereas, on June 30, 2006, AIR filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel

Defendants to Permit Inspection of Land and Property with a hearing date of July 28, 2006

(Docket 72);

Whereas, on July 7, 2006, AIR filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel

Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories with a hearing date of July 28, 2006

(Docket 73);

Whereas, on July 13, 2006, counsel for Schakel and counsel for AIR held a meet and

confer;

Whereas, on July 20, 2006, the parties held a teleconference with the Court in an effort to

resolve the discovery disputes. During that teleconference, Schakel opposed the discovery

motions on the ground that, inter alia, the case was moot because Schakel had applied for an

Authority to Construct permit. The Court granted Schakel leave to file a motion to dismiss on

mootness grounds;

Whereas, by minute order dated July 20, 2006, the Court continued the hearing on the

motions to compel to August 24, 2006 at 2:30 pm and ordered the parties to file a joint statement

pursuant to Local Rule 37-251 by 4:00 pm on August 4, 2006;

Whereas, counsel for AIR was not able to obtain counsel for Schakel’s cooperation in the

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 121 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION 

TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF

LAND AND PROPERTY 2

preparation of a joint statement. Counsel for AIR filed a declaration and memorandum pursuant

to Local Rule 37-251(d) on August 4, 2006;

Whereas, by minute order dated August 24, 2006, the Court vacated the motions to

compel, reset the hearing for the Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Mootness or in the

Alternative, Stay the Action from Judge Snyder’s calendar to Judge Wanger’s calendar, and

ordered AIR to refile the motions to compel upon the Court’s ruling on Schakel’s mootness

motion;

Whereas, on October 2, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss

on Grounds of Mootness or in the Alternative, Stay the Action and took the matter under

submission. The Court informed the parties that it would deny the motions;

Whereas, on October 6, 2006, AIR refiled its motions to compel (Docket 113 and 114);

Whereas, on October 26, 2006, the Court held a teleconference with counsel for AIR and

counsel for Schakel in an effort to resolve the details of the motions to compel. The Court

entered a minute order (Docket 116) ordering Schakel to permit inspection and to produce

documents and respond to interrogatories. The Court also instructed the parties to meet and

confer to resolve the details related to the motions to compel and to submit this proposed order;

and

Whereas, on October 27, 2006, the Court entered the Memorandum Decision and Order

Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Defendants Motion to Stay without Prejudice

(Docket 117).

NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate as follows:

1. By November 16, 2006, Defendants shall draft and submit to counsel for AIR a

detailed protective order to cover asserted trade secrets at the Fred Schakel Dairy (also known as

the South Lakes Dairy) that may be disclosed during the site inspections. 

2. By November 16, 2006, Defendants shall draft and submit to counsel for AIR

proposed bio-security protocols to be observed by AIR’s attorneys, experts, and agents during the

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 121 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION 

TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF

LAND AND PROPERTY 3

site inspections.

3. AIR members are prohibited from participating in the site inspections.

4. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Production No. 35 by November 16, 2006. Such responses shall be subject to a

protective order. 

5. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Production No. 40 by November 16, 2006. Such responses shall be subject to a

protective order. 

6. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Production No. 43 by November 16, 2006. Such responses shall be subject to a

protective order. 

7. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Production No. 44 by November 16, 2006. Such responses shall be subject to a

protective order and shall cover the time period from the first instance of project financing to the

present.

8. Defendants shall file a supplemental response to Request for Project No. 45 by

November 16, 2006. 

9. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Production No. 46 by November 16, 2006. Such responses shall be subject to a

protective order and shall include all of Defendants’ state and federal tax returns.

10. Defendants shall file a supplemental response to Request for Project No. 47 by

November 16, 2006. 

11. Defendants shall file supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 5 by November 16,

2006. To the extent that the response divulges financial or tax data, the responses shall be

subject to a protective order.

12. Defendants shall file supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 6 by November 16,

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 121 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION 

TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF

LAND AND PROPERTY 4

2006. To the extent that the response divulges financial or tax data, the response shall be subject

to a protective order. With respect to “tax history,” the response shall include supplemental tax

history not found in Defendants’ tax returns. The response shall include answers from all

Defendants.

13. Defendants shall file supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 7 by November 16,

2006. To the extent that the response divulges financial or tax data, the response shall be subject

to a protective order. The response shall include answers from all Defendants.

14. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Admission No. 28 and Request for Production No. 31 by November 16, 2006.

15. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Production No. 34 by November 16, 2006.

16. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Production No. 38 by November 16, 2006.

17. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Production No. 39 by November 16, 2006.

18. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Production No. 41 by November 16, 2006.

19. Defendants shall file supplemental responses and produce documents responsive to

Request for Production No. 42 by November 16, 2006.

20. Defendants shall file supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 4 by November 16,

2006.

21. Defendants agree that any and all discovery responses by Defendants Fred Schakel

Dairy, Fred Schakel, Schakel Family Partnership, and Ag Resource III, LLC that were served

prior to South Lakes Dairy being named as a Defendant in this case are adopted by South Lakes

Dairy. Schakel agrees to supplement those discovery responses, if including a response specific

to South Lakes Dairy is necessary, by November 24, 2006.

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 121 Filed 11/13/06 Page 5 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION 

TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF

LAND AND PROPERTY 5

Dated: November 9, 2006 /s/ Brent Newell 

Brent Newell

Attorney for Plaintiff Association of Irritated

Residents

Dated: November 9, 2006 /s/ David R. Albers

David R. Albers

Attorney for Defendants Fred Schakel Dairy, et al.

Good Cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 121 Filed 11/13/06 Page 6 of 6