Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03941/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03941-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 42:9601 CERCLA

---

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 letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 761 and 765.

2

 Plaintiffs also object that certain of the discovery requests are vague, ambiguous, burdensome

and/or oppressive.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA AVILA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WILLITS ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 99-3941 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

RESPONSES

The parties have submitted letter briefs regarding the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ discovery

responses regarding plaintiffs’ claims related to dioxin and/or PCBs.1 Defendants contend that plaintiffs

have raised inappropriate objections, such as the following:

Questions are poorly drafted and Plaintiff[s] have to refer to the preface regularly in the

hope of understanding the definitions. Why shouldn’t defendants frame the request in

straight forward manner without making it complicated and confusing? The litigation

process is a search for the truth and not an exercise of camouflage and obstruction by

crafting confusing definitions.

Def’s Letter Brief at Ex. C.2

 Defendants also argue that the brevity of plaintiffs’ responses, combined

with plaintiffs’ statement that they reserve the right to supplement their responses, indicate that the

responses are incomplete. For example, in response to a request for documents relating to any process,

operation or activity at the Remco site that plaintiffs contend created or released dioxin, plaintiffs

identified two documents, stated that they have not yet completed examining documents, and reserved

their right to “seasonably amend” their responses. Id. Defendants request that the Court strike the

Case 3:99-cv-03941-SI Document 805 Filed 02/24/07 Page 1 of 3
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

improper objections, compel plaintiffs to provide complete responses, and require plaintiffs to seek

leave of Court if they wish to supplement the responses at a later date.

Plaintiffs respond that although this lawsuit has been pending for over seven years, “the release

of dioxin and PCB has never [been] discussed,” and that it would be a “miscarriage of justice” if

plaintiffs are prevented from later supplementing their responses. Plaintiffs provide no explanation for

why it took over seven years to first assert these allegations. In addition, plaintiffs do not state what

further investigation they need to undertake, why they have been unable to complete their investigation

to date, or when they expect to finish their investigation. 

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs’ responses and agrees that plaintiffs should provide complete

responses forthwith. In light of the duration of the litigation and the need to manage this complex case,

it is reasonable to require plaintiffs to provide complete responses to defendants’ discovery at this time.

Plaintiffs should immediately complete all necessary testing, review all produced documents, and

conclude any ongoing investigation, and submit amended, complete responses no later than March 5,

2007. Plaintiffs may seek leave of Court to supplement these amended responses only upon a showing

of good cause. 

The Court also strikes plaintiffs’ objections, and orders plaintiffs not to include these objections

in the amended responses. The Court finds that the questions are not poorly drafted, the definitions are

not confusing, and the discovery requests are not vague, ambiguous, oppressive or burdensome. 

The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding whether it is necessary to modify the

schedule in this case due to the timing of plaintiffs’ amended answers. If the parties decide that a

modification is necessary, the parties shall file a stipulation and proposed schedule no later than March

7, 2007. If the parties are unable to agree on the necessity of a schedule modification, they shall file

letter briefs setting forth their positions no later than March 7, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03941-SI Document 805 Filed 02/24/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 3:99-cv-03941-SI Document 805 Filed 02/24/07 Page 3 of 3