Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01593/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01593-22/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

MAR 1 1 2008 +' 

CLERK, U.8, DIBIRICT COURT EASTERN Dl8TRlOT OF OALlFORNl 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ASSOCIATION OF IRRITATED 1 NO. CV-F-05-1593 OWW/SMS 

RESIDENTS, 1 

1 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 162) 

Plaintiff, 1 AND STAYING ACTION FOR ALL 

1 PURPOSES PENDING EPA 

vs . 1 RULEMAKING PROCESS AND 

1 SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVEIW 

1 

14 C & R VANDERHAM DAIRY, ) 11 .t al., ) 

1 

1 

Defendants. ) 

) 

l8 11 Plaintiff moved for sumnary judgment that Defendants have I 

violated and continue to violate California's State I 

20 Implementation Plan (SIP) by violating the San Joaquin Air I I 

Quality Management Dietrict's Rules 2010 and 2201. I 

22 11 By ~emo~andum Decision and Order filed on September 25, 2007 1 

23 (September 27 Order), eummary judgment was granted for Plaintiff Y 

24 11 that Defendants violated Dietrict Rule 2010 by failing to obtain 1 

II 25 an Authority to Construct (ATC) Permit; that Defendants violated 

26 District Rule 2201 § 4.1.1 by failing to install the Best 

1 

Case 1:05-cv-01593-LJO-SMS Document 192 Filed 03/11/08 Page 1 of 4
Available Control Technology (BACT); and that Defendants violated 

District Rule 2201 § 4.5 by failing to purchase offsets. Summary 

judgment for Plaintiff was denied as to the days of violation. 

On November 29, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for 

reconsideration (Doc. 1621, based on the discovery of an 

agricultural exemption contained with the original SIP that 

exempts Defendants from having to obtain an ATC permit, install 

BACT and obtain offset credits. Defendants asserts that the 

existence of this agricultural exemption would have likely 

changed the outcome of Plaintiff's motion for sununary judgment 

and "highlights the need to consider EPA and the District's 

intent in creating the SIP [because] EPA and the District never 

intended to regulate 'small' sources of emissions, like 

Defendants' C k R Vanderham Dairy." 

On February 1, 2008, Defendants filed a Notice of New 

Evidence and/or Law Material to Defendants' Motion for 

Reconsideration, (Doc. 1801, and a Request for Judicial Notice, 

(Doc. 181). These papers advised that the Regional Administrator 

for the EPA Region IX signed a proposed rule on January 31, 2008 

entitled "Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District" by 

which EPA proposes to correct an alleged error it made in the May 

2004 final approval of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District's portion of the California SIP and to 

approve the District's 2006 revisions to District Rules 2020 and 

2201 explicitly limiting the applicability of new source 

2 

Case 1:05-cv-01593-LJO-SMS Document 192 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 4
permitting requirements to certain minor sources and limiting the 

applicability of offset requirements for all minor sources 

consistent with criteria idenitified in state law. 

At the February 4, 2008 hearing on Defendants' Motion for 

Reconsideration, a stay of all proceedings in this case was 

discussed and ordered pending the EPA's final action on the 

proposed rule and any judicial review of that final rulemaking. 

Plaintiff also requested leave to reopen discovery and to 

conduct limited discovery. At the hearing, the Court orally 

allowed discovery to be reopened "for the limited purposes of 

allowing inquiry into the circumstances about the repromulgation, 

the alleged mistake, the history and, if you will, the agency 

action and administrative activity that has occurred with respect 

to how this mistake was discovered and how the proposed rule 

change has been coming about and anything else that the law 

permits, but we're not going back and reopening the case 

otherwise." (CT, Feb. 4, 2008, 10:2-9). Plaintiff's proposed 

order provides for the reopening of discovery into (a) the 

circumstances of the proposed rule; (b) the alleged mistake that 

EPA described in the proposed rule; (c) this history of the 

proposed rule, including the prior rulemaking that approved 

District Rules 2020 and 2201; (d) the administrative activity 

that has occurred with respect to how the alleged mistake was 

discovered; (e) how the proposed rule came about; and (f) 

anything else permitted by law. 

Although the Court orally granted the request to reopen 

Case 1:05-cv-01593-LJO-SMS Document 192 Filed 03/11/08 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

discovery for the purposes described by Plaintiff, both 

Defendants and the Court have since had a full opportunity to 

3 

4 

5 

court. See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 391 n.450 

(D.C.Cir.1981); South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 504 F.2d 646, 675 

1 (let Cir.1974). 

ACCORDINGLY: 

1. Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE; 

2. Further proceedings in this action are STAYED pending 

consider the request. 

Upon reconsideration, Plaintiff's request to reopen 

discovery is DENIED. The Court is concerned that the requested 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

discovery in a case in which the EPA is not a party will impinge 

upon the EPA final rulemaking process and subsequent judicial 

review, if any. Plaintiff's concerns about the integrity of the 

rulemaking process can be addressed through the EPA rulemaking 

process and on judicial review, if permitted by the reviewing 

18 

19 

26 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

the U.S. E.P.A.'s final action on the proposed rule, and any 

judicial review of that final rulemaking. 

22 

2 3 

2 4 

2 5 

Dated: 3- '32. , 2008 

OLIVER W. 

Case 1:05-cv-01593-LJO-SMS Document 192 Filed 03/11/08 Page 4 of 4