Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-00283/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-00283-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

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. 1067, 1069-1073 in Avila, and Docket Nos. 190 and

192 in Nickerman.

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; No. C 06-2555 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

The parties have submitted letter briefs1 concerning a number of discovery disputes. 

Expert depositions: As part of their discovery responses, plaintiffs submitted declarations from

three different experts: Dr. Alan S. Levin, Dr. William Sawyer, and Dr. Linda Remy. Plaintiffs also

cited or otherwise referred to previously submitted declarations from Dr. Rash Ghosh and Dr. Levin.

Defendants assert that they must have the opportunity to obtain relevant documents and depose each of

these experts so defendants can test the admissibility of their conclusions at the appropriate time, and

also to understand the nature and scope of the experts’ opinions so defendants can identify appropriate

responsive experts. 

As one example of defendants’ need to conduct discovery, defendants note that Dr. Levin

appears to be advancing the same theory of exposure and causation that he relied upon for the prima

facie plaintiffs, which this Court excluded in an order dated February 6, 2008. Defendants state that the

only apparent difference between the two theories is that, in Dr. Levin’s most recent report, he includes

hexavalent chromium in the group of chemicals that he claims were used at the Remco site. Dr. Levin

Case 3:96-cv-00283-SI Document 668 Filed 07/09/08 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

 In addition, it is unclear to the Court to what plaintiffs are referring when they state that they

have a right to “supplement” expert reports. As set forth in the January 23, 2008 order, plaintiffs were

required to provide responses to defendants’ discovery requests by March 15, 2008, including discovery

from experts regarding exposure and causation. The Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendants’

discovery requests impermissibly sought expert opinion, noting that this litigation has been pending for

over 8 years, and that plaintiffs have long been on notice of the need to provide evidence of exposure

and causation. To the extent plaintiffs seek to “supplement” any of the experts’ opinions beyond what

was contained in the experts’ reports, the Court is of the view that such supplementation would be

improper. However, the Court will address that matter if and when plaintiffs seek to “supplement” those

reports. 

2

also relies, at least in part, on the same four blood test results that the Court previously rejected.

Defendants assert that they need to depose Dr. Levin in order to determine what is new and different

about his most recent opinion. Defendants provide similar specific examples of why they need to

depose plaintiffs’ other experts.

Plaintiffs do not respond specifically to any of defendants’ arguments. Instead, plaintiffs contend

that it would be unfair to allow defendants to depose plaintiffs’ experts at this juncture, and that the

Court should require defendants to designate their experts now. Plaintiffs argue that if defendants are

permitted to depose their experts, such discovery would undermine plaintiffs’ right to supplement their

expert reports, and would curtail plaintiffs’ right to a jury trial. Plaintiffs do not explain how allowing

defendants to depose their experts would infringe either of these rights.2

The Court finds that plaintiffs’ objections lack merit, and that it is appropriate for defendants to

conduct discovery related to the expert declarations recently provided by plaintiffs. As provided in the

most recent case management order, the parties shall designate experts by January 18, 2009, rebuttal

experts by February 5, 2009, and the expert discovery cut-off is February 26, 2009. Thus, there is no

basis for plaintiffs’ assertion that defendants should be required to designate their experts now. Further,

there is nothing in the case management order that precludes defendants from conducting discovery

related to plaintiffs’ experts now. Defendants state – and plaintiffs do not deny – that defendants made

their experts available for deposition during the prima facie process, and that plaintiffs elected not to

take their depositions or conduct any other discovery. 

Plaintiffs’ RFA responses: Plaintiffs denied RFAs directed at each plaintiff asking the plaintiff

to admit that he or she did not have any analytical results showing the presence of dioxin congeners or

hazardous substances in his or her blood or other bodily fluids or tissues. In response to questioning by

Case 3:96-cv-00283-SI Document 668 Filed 07/09/08 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

 Mr. Carbrey settled his claims and has been dismissed from this action.

3

defendants, plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the denials were not based on blood tests for each plaintiff,

but rather based on the four blood test results that plaintiffs filed in connection with the prima facie

plaintiffs’ showing. Plaintiffs assert that these results can be extrapolated to show the presence of all

subject chemicals in all plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also state that their denials are based upon forthcoming

blood test results from plaintiffs Sam Ligosky and Craig Carbrey.3

The Court previously held, inter alia, that there was no scientific basis to extrapolate the four

blood test results to other plaintiffs. Further, the plain language of the RFAs is directed to each plaintiff

individually, and thus there is no basis for plaintiffs’ assertion that they can rely on blood testing

performed on other individuals to show “the presence of any dioxin congener in YOUR blood or other

bodily fluids or tissues.” With regard to the forthcoming test results from Sam Ligosky and Craig

Carbrey, plaintiffs acknowledge that the deadline for producing such results has long since passed. In

the Court’s January 23, 2008 order, the Court set a deadline of March 15, 2008 for plaintiffs to respond

to defendants’ discovery requests, and stated that “if any plaintiff fails to provide discovery responses,

a negative inference and/or issue preclusion will result.” Plaintiffs state that they waited until the end

of February 2008 to submit the blood for testing in Germany, and that they were expecting to receive

the results before the March 15, 2008 deadline but that “there was unforeseen delay in processing the

testing.” As of May 16, 2008, plaintiffs were still waiting for the test results. The Court finds that

plaintiffs have not shown any good cause for the delay and failure to meet the March 2008 deadline, and

plaintiffs will not be permitted to rely on these test results. Accordingly, plaintiffs are directed to amend

their RFA responses to state that, aside from Donna Avila, no plaintiff has had any testing performed

on their blood.

Amending RPD and Interrogatory responses: In response to numerous Requests for Production

of Documents and Interrogatories, plaintiffs responded by providing the same response for all plaintiffs,

and by directing defendants to masses of documents without identifying specific documents or sections

of those documents. For example, in response to a request stating “Please produce all DOCUMENTS

constituting, reflecting or providing a basis for any expert opinion regarding PLAINTIFF’S alleged

Case 3:96-cv-00283-SI Document 668 Filed 07/09/08 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

exposure to HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES for which YOU claim Defendants are responsible in this

action,” plaintiffs provided the following joint response: “Plaintiff agrees to produce documents in this

requested category. In addition to what plaintiff has produced previously in Avila and Nickerman,

Plaintiffs have referenced these in the responses to interrogatories and are equally available to you.”

Docket No. 1067 Ex. E. As another example, plaintiffs provided this same joint response to an RPD

asking “Please produce all DOCUMENTS, not previously produced in this action, constituting records

of any health care provider regarding Plaintiff’s health or treatment by such health care provider.” Id.

The Court has repeatedly instructed plaintiffs that such general, undifferentiated responses are

improper. Plaintiffs cannot generally refer defendants to literally thousands of pages of documents.

Further, because these cases involve multiple plaintiffs, it is not possible for plaintiffs to provide a joint,

generic response to requests asking for plaintiff-specific information. Accordingly, the Court directs

plaintiffs to revise and amend their responses to defendants’ RPDs and interrogatories such that they

contain citations to specific documents and specific places in those documents that they believe contain

responsive information. In instances when defendants may already have access to responsive

documents, plaintiffs must at least provide a list of these documents and identify the sections containing

the responsive information. When plaintiffs reference documents not in defendants’ possession, they

must produce these documents to defendants. Finally, plaintiffs must provide a unique response for all

requests seeking plaintiff-specific information. 

 Costs of production of documents: Several of defendants’ RPDs sought documents upon which

plaintiffs’ experts relied. The parties dispute whether defendants should be required to pay half the cost

of producing these documents. Plaintiffs do not cite any authority for their position that defendants

should share the cost. Accordingly, the Court holds that plaintiffs are responsible for the cost of

producing these documents.

Motion practice: Defendants request the Court’s permission to file several motions directly or

indirectly related to plaintiffs’ March 2008 discovery responses. The Court GRANTS this request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:96-cv-00283-SI Document 668 Filed 07/09/08 Page 4 of 4