Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00886/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00886-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 40:258(a) Public Buildings &amp; Property: Land Condemnation

---

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

1 07cv886

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

14.3 ACRES OF LAND, more or less,

situated in San Diego County, State of

California; TIMOTHY LICHTY and

CHERYL LEE LICHTY, CO-TRUSTEES

OF THE TIM AND SHERRY LICHTY

FAMILY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 24,

1991; and OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07cv886-W(NLS)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO EXCLUDE SUPPLEMENTAL

RESPONSE TO CONTENTION

INTERROGATORY AND EXCLUDE

RELATED TESTIMONY

[Doc. No. 58]

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Supplemental Response to Contention

Interrogatory and Exclude Related Testimony [Doc. No. 58]. Plaintiff filed an opposition [Doc. No. 63]. 

For the following reasons, The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from the condemnation of 14.3 acres of land adjacent to the United States –

Mexico border. The relevant factual background is detailed in this Court’s previous order regarding

expert testimony in this case, and will not be repeated here. (See August 29, 2008 Order of the Court,

Doc. No. 39.) The discovery period in this case began in September 2007 and closed on August 1,

2008. (Id. ¶ 6.) The parties focused their discovery efforts primarily on obtaining documentation and

expert opinions regarding the fair market value of Defendants’ property on the date of the taking. 

Case 3:07-cv-00886-AJB-NLS Document 67 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 4
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

2 07cv886

On April 3, 2008, Defendants propounded a First Set of Interrogatories on Plaintiff, to which

Plaintiff provided responses on May 5, 2008. (See Defendants’ Motion, Ex. “B.”) At Defendants’

request, Plaintiff supplemented its response to one of the contention interrogatories on November 5,

2008. Specifically, Defendants sought a further response to Interrogatory 3, which states: “State the

facts on which you base your contention that there is no right of access to the subject property.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s May 5, 2008 response states: 

“Plaintiff has not contended in any pleading or evidence that “there is no right of access” to

the subject property. Review of the public records relating to the subject property shows no

currently existing, recorded right of access in the form of an easement or otherwise. The

Lichtys’ 1992 Notice of Intent to Preserve Easement is a mere claim and does not confer a

property interest.”

(Id. at 3.) Plaintiff’s November 5, 2008 supplemental response states:

“Plaintiff contends that legal access to the subject property does not exist. The access road

to the subject property is not a public thoroughfare. A locked metal gate blocks and prevents

through traffic on the access road. Beyond that gate, the access road passes through land that

is owned by the State of California but which is not part of a state park. The land that now

comprises Border Field State Park was given by the United States to the State of California

solely for public park and recreation services.”

(Defendants’ Motion, Ex. “C.”) Upon receipt of Plaintiff’s supplemental response, Defendants objected,

claiming the response “fundamentally changes” Plaintiff’s position on the point of legal access to the

subject property. Defendants now assert that the response should be barred, along with all evidence and

related testimony which may be offered at trial to contest Defendants’ right of access to the subject

property. (Defendants’ Memorandum, 5.) 

DISCUSSION

Defendants move for exclusionary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1), which provides that “[a]

party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a) or

26(e)(1), or to amend a prior response to discovery as required by Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless such

failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial . . . any witness or information not so

disclosed.” Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s original interrogatory response “misled” Defendants into

thinking that Plaintiff had conceded that Defendants have a right of access to the subject property. 

(Defendants’ Memorandum, 6.) Because Defendants interpret Plaintiff’s original response in this

manner, they further contend that Plaintiff’s supplemental response constitutes an “eleventh hour change

Case 3:07-cv-00886-AJB-NLS Document 67 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3 07cv886

of the Government’s contentions” that is “extremely prejudicial and should not be tolerated.” (Id. at 7.) 

Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion, and asserts three reasons to support denial of the motion

in its entirety. First, Plaintiff argues that Defendants completely misinterpret the May 5, 2008

interrogatory response, and when the response is read as a whole it clearly conveys Plaintiff’s intent to

dispute legal access to the subject property. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, 4.) Second, Plaintiff lists a variety

of additional discovery that was taken during the discovery period in this case, all of which provide

examples of Plaintiff placing the legal access issue directly in contention and in fact, highlighting it as a

key issue in the case due to its impact on the property’s value. (Id. at 5.) As such, Plaintiff asserts that

the discovery taken in the case by both parties renders Defendants’ position with respect to the

supplemental interrogatory response untenable. (Id. at 8.) Finally, Plaintiff points to the most recent

discovery dispute between the parties involving the August 22, 2008 declaration of Clay Phillips, which

offered a lay opinion by a state park employee regarding whether access to the property is available. 

(Id.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ solicitation of Phillips’ declaration after the August 1, 2008

discovery deadline demonstrates that Defendants knew quite well the importance of the issue of access

to the property and kept pursuing evidence in their favor on the issue. Plaintiff concludes by asserting

that Defendants’ current claim that Plaintiff abandoned the legal access issue in May is disingenuous

and their motion should be denied. (Id. at 9.) The Court agrees. 

Defendants’ motion very nearly crosses the threshold of zealous advocacy into the realm of

mendacious and frivolous. To suggest that Plaintiff’s May 5, 2008 interrogatory response “conceded”

the issue of legal right of access to the Lichtys’ property, thereby making it a “nonissue,” is senseless in

light of the months of discovery in this case during which expert reports, depositions, requests for

admission, and discovery motions all in one way or another involved directly or tangentially, the right of

access issue. Even taken outside of the context of the whole of discovery in this case, a plain reading of

Plaintiff’s May 5, 2008 interrogatory response reveals that as of the date of the response, Plaintiff had

reviewed the public records, found no recorded easement or other recorded right of access, and based on

the absence of a recorded property interest, concluded there exists no legal right of access to the

property. Plaintiff placed Defendants on notice May 5, 2008 that legal right of access to the subject

property would be a contested issue. Months of discovery and several attempts to resolve the case short

Case 3:07-cv-00886-AJB-NLS Document 67 Filed 11/17/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4 07cv886

of trial confirmed that to be the case. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 17, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00886-AJB-NLS Document 67 Filed 11/17/08 Page 4 of 4