Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02555/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02555-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

 The parties’ letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 74-80.

2

 Plaintiffs identified specific documents only in response to one of the sixty-seven document

requests. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES NICKERMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

REMCO HYDRAULICS INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-2555 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Defendants have filed a motion to compel plaintiffs to provide substantive responses to

defendants’ first set of requests for production of documents and first set of interrogatories. Plaintiffs

oppose the motion.1 Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ responses are insufficient because they fail to

identify or produce responsive documents,2 and instead raise a host of meritless objections. With respect

to the interrogatories, defendants argue that plaintiffs raise the same deficient objections, and that the

limited substantive information provided by plaintiffs is entirely unresponsive to the interrogatories.

The Court has reviewed the discovery at issue, as well as plaintiffs’ responses thereto, and

concludes that plaintiffs’ responses are wholly deficient. As just one example, defendants’ Document

Request No. 1 requests, “All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody or control concerning any

testing and/or analysis of any water supply from which YOU have consumed water or with which YOU

have had, or currently have, any contact.” Def’s Motion, Ex. A. Plaintiffs responded as follows:

Objection, calls for compound response, is unduly burdensome, and oppressive. It also

Case 3:06-cv-02555-SI Document 82 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

calls for Plaintiff to respond with impermissible subparts. Question is also vague and

ambiguous. Plaintiffs object to the question to the extent that it calls for an expert

opinion from a lay person and expert opinions which are premature at this stage and thus

have yet to be disclosed. The request is overbroad and thereby unduly burdensome in

that it seeks “any and all” facts, evidence and documents which “show” a broad area of

inquiry. The documents sought by this request are all documents generated by

Defendants and/or their predecessor, various government agencies, litigation in other

related actions, court document and/or were produced by defendants. As such, the

Defendants can and must undertake the burden of review and analysis of the documents

identified and produced. Defendants can review these documents as easily as can

Plaintiffs in an effort to ascertain responses to this question regarding the knowledge that

Defendants had that releases of chemicals exposed the Plaintiffs’ properties to such

chemicals.

Without waiving such objections: See all documents in the possession of my counsel, as

well as all documents provided to you in the past in the Avila case and this matter.

Discovery is continuing and Plaintiffs will seasonably amend these responses as more

information becomes known.

Id. 

Plaintiffs’ objection – which plaintiffs incorporated in their responses to all of the other

document requests – lacks merit for a number of reasons. This is a boilerplate objection that is not

tailored to the specific request; contrary to the statements in the objection, the request does not ask for

“any and all facts,” or documents that “show” a broad area of inquiry. Instead, the request specifically

asks for documents “concerning any testing and/or analysis of water supply” from which plaintiffs have

consumed or had contact. Indeed, many of the document requests reference particular paragraphs of

the complaint and are directed at uncovering the facts supporting the claims in the complaint. As such,

plaintiffs’ objection that the document requests are “vague and ambiguous”is patently without merit.

Similarly, there is nothing about the document request that requires an expert opinion; defendants seek

documents related to water testing or analysis. Plaintiffs’ counsel can easily identify and produce any

such documents.

More importantly, it is completely improper to direct defendants to masses of unspecified

documents. It is incumbent on plaintiffs’ counsel to diligently search for and provide to defendants all

responsive documents in their possession, custody or control. Plaintiffs’ counsel is well aware of the

complexity of this litigation, and to require defendants to guess about which documents are responsive

is irresponsible and unprofessional. This is especially true here in light of the fact that this case is the

latest in a series of related tort actions that have been pending for many years and in which extensive

Case 3:06-cv-02555-SI Document 82 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

discovery has already been completed. 

Plaintiffs’ responses to the interrogatories are similarly deficient. Plaintiffs again raise frivolous

objections, refer defendants to thousands of unspecified pages of documents, and, for some

interrogatories, provide substantive responses that lack the specific details requested. For example,

Interrogatory No. 6 states,

For each Plaintiff asserting a claim for fraudulent concealment, IDENTIFY any and all

facts, evidence and DOCUMENTS showing that either or both DEFENDANTS had

knowledge before commencement of this action on December 23, 2004 that each such

Plaintiff was exposed by DEFENDANTS’ activities to a HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE,

as alleged in paragraphs 113 and 114 of YOUR COMPLAINT.

Def’s Motion Ex. B. Plaintiffs responded, inter alia, by stating that the interrogatory is vague and

ambiguous, calls for an expert opinion, and that the documents sought are all documents generated by

defendants, various government agencies, and/or in litigation in other related action. 

These objections are frivolous. The interrogatory is specific and directed at plaintiffs’ claims

for fraudulent concealment. The interrogatory does not call for an expert opinion, but rather the facts,

evidence and documents showing defendants knew that their activities exposed plaintiffs to hazardous

substances. Such information is within the knowledge of plaintiffs and/or their counsel. Finally, as with

the document request discussed above, it is improper to refer defendants to thousands of unspecified

pages of documents.

The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to compel and orders as follows. The Court STRIKES

plaintiffs’ deficient responses to the document requests and interrogatories, and ORDERS plaintiffs to

provide amended responses by April 30, 2007. The amended responses shall not contain the meritless

objections that were the subject of the instant motion to compel. In response to defendants’ document

requests, plaintiffs shall identify or produce responsive documents in their possession, custody or

control, or they shall state that they do not have any responsive documents. In response to defendants’

interrogatories, plaintiffs shall provide substantive answers that directly and specifically respond to the

interrogatories at issue. If plaintiffs do not have responsive information, they shall affirmatively state

so in their responses. Finally, plaintiffs shall not be permitted to amend their responses without first

obtaining leave of Court upon a showing of good cause.

Case 3:06-cv-02555-SI Document 82 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02555-SI Document 82 Filed 04/05/07 Page 4 of 4