Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00583-49/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

The court’s use of “knowledgeable person” should be understood in the sense of a 1

Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deponent, i.e., a person, who by way of experience and/or after having

performed necessary investigation and preparation on acquiring information on a particular

subject can give testimony binding the party for whom the person speaks. If multiple persons

are required, multiple declarations should be filed. 

. Should Bilfinger Berger refuse access to documents or information upon request, the 2

court requests that Bilfinger Berger, a party herein, also designate a person to supply a

declaration pursuant to this order. The court understands that Bilfinger Berger has not answered

or appeared as of yet. If Bilfinger Berger refuses to cooperate at this time, the undersigned will

order an evidentiary hearing upon its appearance.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-05-0583 LKK GGH

vs.

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL ORDER

UTILITY DISTRICT, et al,

Defendants. 

 /

With respect to SMUD’s motion for sanctions: 

1. No later than April 17, 2007, Fru-Con shall file a declaration signed by a knowledgeable

person(s) concerning: 1

(A) whether any documents exist, or existed, in whatever form (including electronic),

which reference the September, 2004 Gale audit or the September, 2004 Ophoven audit; in

making the declaration, the person shall inquire of Bilfinger Berger and any other pertinent

person /entity which would normally give Fru-Con access to documents upon request ; 2

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 380 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 3
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

“Management personnel” means any person who had managerial responsibilities on site 3

for the CPP project as well as any Fru-Con management official who had oversight

responsibilities for the CPP project. 

“Engineer’s estimate” means a detailed estimate of construction costs for the CPP 4

project prepared by an engineer or engineering service, not previously produced in this litigation

by SMUD.

2

(B) if documents exist, the reasons why such documents were not disclosed;

(C) if documents existed at one time, but not presently, the specific reason(s) why the

documents no longer exist; the declarant shall attempt to list the documents missing/destroyed;

2. If documents exist, the declarant shall list these documents as if on a privilege log; any

documents for which a privilege is claimed shall be identified as such with annotation as

privileged; the declarant shall state why such privileged documents were not previously

identified;

3. Fru-Con and/or Bilfinger Berger shall produce all non-privileged documents on April 19, 2007

in court.

4. The declarant shall identify all CPP Fru-Con management personnel whose e-mail 3

(collectively) was destroyed upon their resignation/termination as a result of any document

destruction policy, as well as the dates of destruction; personnel (as defined) whose e-mail was

destroyed, but not pursuant to any policy, shall also be listed.

With respect to Fru-Con’s motion for sanctions:

1. The court understands from the briefs, that SMUD has unequivocally asserted that no

“engineer’s estimate” was prepared for the CPP project. However, the testimony underlying the

representation seems equivocal, at least in part. SMUD shall file a declaration by a

knowledgeable person (as defined above) no later than April 17, 2007 concerning:

(A) whether an engineer’s estimate of construction costs was prepared; 4

(B) if one was prepared, the declarant shall describe it as if on a privilege log; the

declarant shall relate whether the document(s) exist today, or if it (they) does not exist, the

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 380 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

specific reasons for the document(s) being missing/destroyed.

2. If any existing documents are identified, SMUD shall produce the documents on April 19,

2007 in court.

3. The declarant shall also describe as specifically as possible, the who, what, where, why of any

document disposal, if any, which occurred at the CPP site upon Fru-Con being barred from the

construction site; included within this description shall be any inventory of documents which was

made prior to disposal; the declarant shall specify any on-site documents which were retained

and transmitted to SMUD in-house or litigation counsel and/or their pertinent staffs, by listing

them as if on a privilege log.

A failure by any party to comply with this order in good faith may lead to an

evidentiary hearing and/or sanctions, including dispositive sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: April 5, 2007

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Fru-Con583.ord

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 380 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 3