Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02382/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02382-28/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 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Howard McConnell, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PacifiCorp, Inc.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 07-2382 WHA (JL)

ORDER Re Parties’ Joint Statements

(Docket #s 212, 216)

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. William H.

Allsup) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The parties’ discovery

disputes, in their Joint Statements e-filed and submitted to the Court, were decided without

oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b)

Docket # 212

In their Joint Statement at Docket # 212 Defendants ask the Court to order Plaintiffs

to provide more specific information regarding the 37-page list of documents which

Plaintiffs contend support their claims for damages, as ordered by this Court July 5, 2008 at

Docket Number 178. On August 1, 2008, per this Court’s Standing Order, PacifiCorp and

Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred in person but were unable to resolve the issues

described below.

Case 3:07-cv-02382-WHA Document 233 Filed 08/15/08 Page 1 of 7
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 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 7

The Court’s Order reads, in pertinent part:

“ Plaintiffs shall identify the documents in the 37-page list they produced to

Defendant, as to how each supports Plaintiffs’ claims for damages.” (Order at 1:26-27)

At the hearing on the previous motion, the Court had stated, “ [PacifiCorp is] entitled

to know everything that is going to come up at trial with respect to damages. So if [Plaintiffs

are] relying on any kind of reports or literature or whatever about likely medical problems

that could result from this type of condition in the future [PacifiCorp] is entitled to know.”

(Transcript of July 2, 2008 hearing at 9:2-7. (Docket # 179)

Plaintiffs represent that their responses comply with this Court’s order. Plaintiffs

divided the list of 326 documents into three categories, one discussing factors relating to

water quality; another, toxic algae; and a third, salmon population decline. 

As Plaintiffs describe them: 

The 123 documents in the first category “discuss factors relating to the impaired

water quality of the Klamath River and Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs” and “therefore

relate to Plaintiffs’ [nuisance and negligence] claims for economic damages relating to the

toxic contamination and pollution in the receiving waters” and “to Plaintiffs’ [trespass] claim

for economic damages related to residual toxic contamination.”

The 90 documents in the second category allegedly “discuss factors relating to toxic

algae” and according to Plaintiffs, “therefore relate to Plaintiffs’ [nuisance and negligence]

claims for economic damages related to the toxic contamination and pollution in the

receiving waters,” “to Plaintiffs’ [nuisance and negligence] claims for emotional damages

caused by Defendant,” and “to Plaintiffs’ [trespass] claims for economic damages related to

residual toxic contamination.”

The 127 documents in the third category “discuss factors relating to the decline of

Klamath Salmon” and according to Plaintiffs, “therefore relate to Plaintiffs’ claims for

[nuisance and negligent] emotional damages caused by Defendant.”

Plaintiffs do not explain how any individual document relates to any individual 

Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, only that categories of documents relate to nuisance and

Case 3:07-cv-02382-WHA Document 233 Filed 08/15/08 Page 2 of 7
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 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 7

negligence claims for economic and emotional damages, or trespass property damages.

Plaintiffs’ broad categorization of documents provides no indication “as to how each

supports Plaintiffs’ claims for damages.” See Order (Docket No. 178) ¶ 1.

Plaintiffs must identify how each document supports their claims for damages. See

Order (Docket No. 178) Breaking a 37- page list of documents into three broad and

nonexclusive categories based on general subject matter does not correct Plaintiffs’ original

insufficient response. Fundamentally, Plaintiffs’ document identification in response to this

Court’s order provides no more information than the original 37-page list. 

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants must already have enough information regarding

Plaintiffs’ damages claims, since Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs also argue that they complied with this Court’s order by numbering the documents

on the 37-page list sequentially and then categorizing the claims for damages and referring

to specific paragraphs in their Complaint where these damages were listed, and then

explaining how the documents supported Plaintiffs’ claims.

The Court finds these justifications completely inadequate. Harlem River Consumers

Co-op., Inc. v. Associated Grocers of Harlem, Inc., 64 F.R.D. 459, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)

(rejecting as nonresponsive blanket categories of documents in response to

interrogatories). Plaintiffs’ explanations consist of broad characterizations: “discussed

factors relating to the impaired water quality of the Klamath River and Copco and Iron Gate

Reservoirs,” or “discussed factors related to the toxic contamination and pollution of the

receiving waters.”

These explanations do not clarify how specific actions of Defendants or factors

under their control caused specific damage to specific Plaintiffs.

Conclusion and Order re # 212

Plaintiffs shall identify, for each document, how it supports which claims of damages,

for which Plaintiff or Plaintiffs, with a description of the specific damage, as it relates to the

person or property of the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs. Compliance shall be due within ten days of

the issuance of this order.

Case 3:07-cv-02382-WHA Document 233 Filed 08/15/08 Page 3 of 7
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 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 4 of 7

Docket #216

Defendants’ requests and Plaintiffs’ objections

Defendants ask the Court to order Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ Requests For

Admissions (“RFAs”) and accompanying interrogatories. Defendants’ three RFAs asked

Plaintiffs to admit that: (1) they have physically recovered from any prior physical injury; (2)

they do not have any present physical injury; and (3) it is not more likely than not that

Plaintiffs will develop future injury due to exposure to MSAE or microcystin or diet impacts. 

The accompanying interrogatories seek facts, documents, and witnesses supporting any

denial.

Counsel also met and conferred in person on August 1, 2008 to attempt to resolve

this portion of their dispute, but were unsuccessful. 

Plaintiffs denied each RFA but declined to respond further, other than to contend

that the answers are available to Defendants in other discovery such as prior

interrogatories, depositions or documents; that the discovery is unreasonably duplicative

and cumulative; and that Interrogatory 3 contains impermissible subparts. Defendants

reject Plaintiffs’ arguments, and ask the Court to find that Plaintiffs’ responses violate the

Federal Rules in a number of ways.

Interrogatories have been answered separately

Defendants ask the Court to find that Plaintiffs fail to comply with the requirement of

FRCP 33(b)(3) that each interrogatory “be answered separately and fully in writing under

oath.” Plaintiffs counter by stating that they have already effectively answered these

interrogatories in their responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories - They argue

that their response to Interrogatory Number 1 describes each injury that each Plaintiff

claims to have suffered, Number 3 identifies the causes contributing to each injury, Number

5 describes each injury that each Plaintiff contends he will suffer, and Number 13 describes

each Plaintiff’s exposure to MSAE and microcystin. This Court previously upheld the

sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ answers. (Order at ¶1, Docket No. 178)

References to other discovery responses are permissible

Case 3:07-cv-02382-WHA Document 233 Filed 08/15/08 Page 4 of 7
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 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 5 of 7

Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs’ referral to other discovery responses is

improper, and cites this Court’s decision in the case of Pacific Lumber Co v. Nat’l Union

Fire Ins. Co., 2005 WL 318811, 4 (N.D.Cal. 2005). However, the published decision on

which this Court relied in Pacific Lumber specifies that this is true only where the referral

does not lead to enlightening information:

“ Responding to an interrogatory with a reference to another interrogatory or to a

document or pleading is improper. ‘It is well established that an answer to an

interrogatory 'must be responsive to the question. It should be complete in itself and

should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other

interrogatories, at least where such references make it impossible to determine

whether an adequate answer has been given without an elaborate comparison of

answers.' " Smith v. Logansport Community School Corp., 139 F.R.D. 637, 650

(N.D.Ind.1991)(citing 4A J. Moore, J. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice § 33.25[1](2d

ed.1991)) ” Pacific Lumber, Id. (Emphasis added). 

In the Pacific Lumber case, the Court expressly found that the references were

nonresponsive. That is not the situation here. Plaintiffs have provided specific references to

where in their previous interrogatory responses Defendants may find the answers to their

current set of interrogatories. Any references to documents will presumably also be

responsive, after Plaintiffs adequately identify documents, as provided elsewhere in this

Order.

Interrogatory 3 should be framed as three requests

Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory 3 as containing subparts, and ask the Court to find

that it should be framed as three separate requests. Defendants argue that the alleged

subparts Plaintiffs object to are “logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily

related to the primary question” posed by the interrogatory. Safeco of Am. v. Rawstron, 181

F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D.Cal. 1998) (finding interrogatories which correspond to the same RFA 

to count as one interrogatory under FRCP 33(c) and applicable Local Rules).

Defendants’ three RFAs asked Plaintiffs to admit that: (1) they have physically

recovered from any prior physical injury; (2) they do not have any present physical injury;

and (3) it is not more likely than not that Plaintiffs will develop future injury due to exposure

to MSAE or microcystin or diet impacts. This Court finds that the requests satisfy the rule

Case 3:07-cv-02382-WHA Document 233 Filed 08/15/08 Page 5 of 7
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 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 6 of 7

that an RFA “[is] required to be simple and direct, and should be limited to singular relevant

facts.”). Safeco, 181 F.R.D. at 446.

The next phase of the inquiry is whether the interrogatories exceed the permissible

number.

”[A]n interrogatory that asks the responding party to state facts, identify witnesses,

or identify documents supporting the denial of each request for admission contained

in a set of requests for admissions usually should be construed as containing a

subpart for each request for admission contained in the set.FN 3. Therefore, each of

defendant's requests for admissions as to which a response to the three

interrogatories would be required if the request were not admitted should be treated

as a separately countable subpart of each of the three interrogatories.” Id.

Accordingly, Interrogatory 3, since it seeks facts, witnesses, and documents (three

categories of responses) for three separate RFA’s (asking for past, present, and future

injuries, should be framed as three separate requests.

Defendants seek cumulative and duplicative responses

Plaintiffs ask the Court to find that these additional interrogatories are unreasonably

cumulative and duplicative, and that Defendants have had ample opportunity to obtain the

information elsewhere, and that the burden and expense of the proposed discovery

outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,

the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. FRCP 26(b)(2) Plaintiffs ask the Court

to find that all these factors should be resolved in their favor, especially after Defendants

have deposed three Plaintiffs regarding their medical history, exposure to MSAE and

microcystin. Plaintiffs claim that the fact that Defendants have already filed a motion for

summary judgment indicates that they have sufficient discovery to proceed with the

defense of their case. Plaintiffs demonstrate that they have provided answers to

Defendants’ interrogatories, so Plaintiffs show that the current requests are cumulative and

duplicative, within the parameters of discovery which the Court may limit or deny, pursuant

to FRCP 26 (b)(2).

Conclusion and Order re Docket # 216

Case 3:07-cv-02382-WHA Document 233 Filed 08/15/08 Page 6 of 7
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 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 7 of 7

In this case, Plaintiffs have previously provided virtually the identical information

Defendants seek and the Court has found their answers to be responsive. Although

Plaintiffs technically have not responded in full and have responded by referring to other

documents, the Court finds that, once Plaintiffs have properly identified documents on

which they rely, as provided earlier in this Court’s Order, they will have complied with the

Federal Rules. In addition, Plaintiffs’ objections to Interrogatory 3 are well founded.

Defendants ask Plaintiffs to provide facts, witnesses, and documents which support their

responses to each of the three RFAs. Plaintiffs did not admit the RFAs, accordingly,

Interrogatory 3 should be framed as three separate interrogatories. In sum, this Court finds

that Plaintiffs have previously effectively responded to Defendants’ requests for facts,

witnesses and documents supporting Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding their past, present,

and future injuries and Plaintiffs need not respond further to this last set of interrogatories.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 15, 2008

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\07-2382\Order-212, 216.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02382-WHA Document 233 Filed 08/15/08 Page 7 of 7