Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00847/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00847-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCM CONSTRUCTION, INC., a

California corporation,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-00847-JAM-EFB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on Defendant MCM 

Construction, Inc.’s (“MCM”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 

#17).1 Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

(“Plaintiff”) opposed the motion (Doc. #23). MCM replied (Doc. 

#25).

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought suit under the enforcement provisions of 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et 

seq. (the “Clean Water Act”) (Doc. #2). The Complaint seeks 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 

for May 7, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-00847-JAM-EFB Document 26 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 5
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

relief for MCM’s discharges of polluted storm water from its 

facility located at 6413 32nd Street, North Highlands, California 

(“the Facility”) in violation of its National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit No. CA S000001, California 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region 

(“Regional Board”) Order No. 92-12-DWQ as amended by Order No. 

07-03-DWQ (hereinafter “General Permit”). 

Specifically, Plaintiff brings six claims against MCM based 

on MCM’s failure to comply with the Clean Water Act’s 

requirements. 

II. OPINION

MCM moves for summary judgment based on its assertion that 

it is not subject to the Clean Water Act’s stormwater 

requirements. MSJ at p. 1. It contends all of Plaintiff’s 

claims rely on the premise that MCM’s facility is “associated 

with industrial activity” within the meaning of the Clean Water 

Act’s implementing regulations. MCM argues that Plaintiff has 

not refuted the evidence MCM has provided proving as a matter of 

law that the Facility is not subject to the provisions of the 

Clean Water Act, and therefore the Complaint must be dismissed. 

In addition to its arguments refuting MCM’s contentions, 

Plaintiff responds that whether or not the Facility is subject to 

the Clean Water Act requirements is inherently “a fact-based 

determination for which discovery is warranted.” Opp. at p. 22. 

Plaintiff therefore requests the Court deny the motion and permit 

Plaintiff to conduct discovery in order to present facts to 

justify its opposition to the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Case 2:13-cv-00847-JAM-EFB Document 26 Filed 06/09/14 Page 2 of 5
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

Civil Procedure 56(d). 

Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides 

a procedure by which a party may avoid summary judgment when such 

party has not had sufficient opportunity to discover affirmative 

evidence necessary to oppose the motion. See Garrett v. San 

Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987). In particular, 

Rule 56(d) provides that a court may deny a summary judgment 

motion and permit the opposing party to conduct discovery where 

it appears that the opposing party, in the absence of such 

discovery, is unable to present facts essential to opposing the 

motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that to 

prevail on such a motion, parties “must show (1) that they have 

set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to 

elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought exist, 

and (3) that these sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to resist 

the summary judgment motion.” State of California v. Campbell, 

138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). Local Rule 260(b) further 

states that when a need for discovery is asserted as a basis for 

denial of a motion for summary judgment “the party opposing the 

motion shall provide a specification of the particular facts on 

which discovery is to be had or the issue on which discovery is 

necessary.”

The burden is on the party seeking to conduct additional 

discovery to put forth sufficient facts to show that the evidence 

sought exists. Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416 

(9th Cir. 1987). However, where a motion for summary judgment 

has been filed “before a party has had a realistic opportunity to 

Case 2:13-cv-00847-JAM-EFB Document 26 Filed 06/09/14 Page 3 of 5
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

pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case” courts 

should grant such motions “fairly freely.” Burlington N. Santa 

Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th 

Cir. 2003).

In its Opposition, Plaintiff contends it has not had an 

opportunity to conduct any formal discovery pertaining to the 

Facility. Opp. at p. 22. In the declaration attached to 

Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel, Douglas Chermak, 

asserts that Plaintiff served discovery requests upon MCM. 

Included within these was a request for an inspection of MCM’s 

facility “in order to obtain information about the nature of the 

industrial activities occurring at the MCM Facility.” Chermak 

Decl. ¶ 13. It also asserts that Plaintiff seeks to depose 

relevant personnel of MCM regarding industrial activities at the 

Facility. Id. ¶ 14. The declaration further states that it 

believes it is highly likely that these discovery requests will

produce evidence controverting MCM’s claims and will reveal 

evidence that certain industrial activities are in fact taking 

place at the Facility, serving as an essential basis for its 

opposition to MCM’s motion. Id. ¶ 15-16. 

Given that Plaintiff has not had an adequate opportunity to 

conduct discovery in this matter, the Court finds that denying 

the motion at this time is appropriate. Plaintiff has provided 

specific reasons for why it cannot fully present the facts that 

would justify its opposition to MCM’s motion. In a declaration 

attached to the motion, Plaintiff has identified specific 

discovery requests that it believes will provide the evidence 

necessary to defeat the motion and the reasons explaining why it 

Case 2:13-cv-00847-JAM-EFB Document 26 Filed 06/09/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

has been unable to conduct such discovery up to this point. See

Campbell, 138 F.3d at 779.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 

denied without prejudice. The Court will therefore defer 

addressing MCM’s motion on its merits until Plaintiff has 

conducted discovery, the motion is renewed and Plaintiff has the 

opportunity to present facts it believes are essential to 

opposing the motion. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES MCM’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to renewal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-00847-JAM-EFB Document 26 Filed 06/09/14 Page 5 of 5