Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05853/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05853-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

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

 On February 12, 2005, the Court granted Defendant J.R. Simplot Company’s Motion for Good Faith

Settlement. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE BILLINGSLEY, et al, )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

)

LOVELAND INDUSTRIES, INC., )

dba UAP WEST, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

CV F 02 5853 REC DLB

ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’

DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTS

(Document 93)

On July 14, 2005, the parties filed the instant discovery motion. The matter was heard on

August 5, 2005, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Gerald

Leverett appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Sean Slattery appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed the instant action in the Tulare County Superior Court on June

12, 2002, and the action was subsequently removed to this Court. Plaintiffs allege that

Defendant Loveland Industries, Inc. (“Defendant”)1trespassed upon Plaintiffs’ almond orchard. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that during 2001, Defendant, without authorization, deposited into a

certain “tail water pit” unknown substances or materials which were generated by Defendant. 

Case 1:02-cv-05853-LJO -DLB Document 101 Filed 08/08/05 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

Plaintiffs allege that the orchard was damaged as a result of the introduction of the substances

into the irrigation water. Defendant contends that the only substances it placed into the tail water

pit were rinsewater and minimal amounts of nitrogen based fertilizers (referred to by the parties

as “rinseade” and/or “rinsate”), and that it did so with permission and pursuant to a two year old

informal agreement between the parties. Defendant further contends that it did not cause any

damage to Plaintiffs’ property.

On February 24, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their first discovery motion regarding Defendant’s

responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Nos. 1-30. These requests asked for admissions

relating “captured diluted solutions” and “fertilizing materials,” as those terms are defined by the

California Food and Agriculture Code. On March 29, 2005, the Court denied the motion in part

and granted the motion in part. As is relevant for this motion, the Court ordered Defendant to

respond to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, except for Nos. 2, 3, 11 and 12. 

On July 14, 2005, the parties filed the instant discovery motion. Plaintiffs request that the

Court determined the sufficiency of Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions

Nos. 15, 16, 18, 26 and 28. Defendant seeks to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Wayne

Billingsley. 

The parties filed their joint statement pursuant to Local Rule 37-251 on July 25, 2005. 

On August 3, 2005, the parties filed a supplemental joint statement indicating that the issues

regarding Requests for Admissions Nos. 26 and 28 had been resolved. 

DISCUSSION

A. Defendant’s Responses to Requests for Admissions

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a), a party who has requested admissions

may move to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections. 

Plaintiffs request that this Court determine the sufficiency of Defendant’s responses to

Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, Nos. 15, 16, and 18. On March 29, 2005, the Court ordered

Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, except for Nos. 2, 3, 11

and 12. The Court explained that the requests were proper because they required Defendant to

apply the facts of the instant action to the legal terms as defined in the preamble to the requests. 

Case 1:02-cv-05853-LJO -DLB Document 101 Filed 08/08/05 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 2

 The Court has not included Defendant’s boilerplate objections.

3

The requests at issue are as follows:

Request No. 15 

Admit that Defendant UAP distributed to Plaintiffs captured diluted solutions that were

not physically accompanied by a label in 2000.

Request No. 16

Admit that Defendant UAP distributed to Plaintiffs captured diluted solutions that were

not physically accompanied by a label in 2001.

Request No. 18

Admit that Defendant UAP never tested the captured diluted solutions distributed by

UAP to Plaintiffs in 2001 to determine the minium percentage of primary or secondary plant

nutrients or micronutrients, or both.

Defendant provided the following response2 to each of the above requests: 

Deny. To the extent plaintiffs’ preliminary definitions mirror sections of the California

Agricultural Code, responding party admits the majority of its practices as they pertain to

fertilizer distribution within the State of California are governed by applicable sections of the

California Agricultural Code. 

The response is the same response provided prior to Plaintiffs’ first discovery motion and

the Court’s subsequent order. Plaintiffs assert that the response is insufficient, based on the prior

court order and based, in part, on the belief that the facts undermine Defendant’s denial. 

A review of the Court’s prior order reveals that the Court simply ordered Defendant to

either admit or deny the requests at issue. Indeed, Defendant’s answer goes beyond that and

includes a further explanation regarding the applicability of the California Food and Agriculture

Code to Defendant’s practices. This explanation, which is neither a denial nor an admission, is

irrelevant. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the explanation that follows “Deny.” STRICKEN. 

Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions Nos. 15, 16 and 18 is therefore,

“Deny.”

Case 1:02-cv-05853-LJO -DLB Document 101 Filed 08/08/05 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

To the extent Plaintiffs argue that the facts make Defendant’s denials questionable and

request that this Court order admissions, the Court cannot prohibit a party from admitting or

denying a request based upon their understanding and application of the facts. 

B. Deposition of Plaintiff Wayne Billingsley

Defendant requests that this Court order Plaintiff Wayne Billingsley to appear for his

properly noticed deposition. Plaintiffs have objected to his deposition because of his physical

health, explaining that he suffered a stroke two years ago and contend that he is not capable of

giving accurate testimony. They also contend that the deposition process may constitute a health

hazard. 

Mr. Billingsley, despite his health issues, is a named plaintiff in this case and Defendant

is entitled to his deposition. Defendant is aware of his condition and is willing to make certain

accommodations. Accordingly, Defendant’s request to depose Mr. Billingsley is GRANTED. 

The deposition will take place at a time and place of Mr. Billingsley’s convenience. The

deposition will be limited to two hours and will be recessed if the need arises.

ORDER

1. As to Plaintiffs’ motion to determine the sufficiency of Defendant’s responses to

Requests for Admissions Nos. 15, 16 and 18, the Court ORDERS the explanation

that follows “Deny.” STRICKEN. Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ Request for

Admissions Nos. 15, 16 and 18 is therefore, “Deny.”

2. Defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Wayne Billingsley is

GRANTED. The deposition shall (1) take place at a time and place of Mr.

Billingsley’s convenience; (2) be limited to two hours; and (3) be recessed if the

need arises.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 5, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05853-LJO -DLB Document 101 Filed 08/08/05 Page 4 of 4