Rocky Mountain Farmers Union et al v. Corey, et al

Filing 217

ORDER DENYING #162 Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors' Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/11/2011. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS
UNION, et al.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
JAMES GOLDSTENE, et al.,
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:09cv02234 LJO DLB
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AND
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION
TO COMPEL
(Document 162)

17
On February 11, 2011, Defendant James N. Goldstene (“Defendant”) and Defendant18
Intervenors National Resources Defense Council, Inc., Conservation Law Foundation, Sierra Club
19
and Environmental Defense Fund (“Defendant-Intervenors”) filed the instant motion to compel
20
further responses from Plaintiffs Renewable Fuels Assoc. (“RFA”) and Growth Energy (“GE”). The
21
motion was heard before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 8,
22
2011. Gavin McCabe appeared on behalf of Defendant. David Pettit appeared on behalf of
23
Defendant-Intervenors. John Kinsey, Timothy Jones, Bryan Killian and Thomas Lotterman appeared
24
on behalf of Plaintiff RFA. Mr. Kinsey and Mr. Jones also appeared on behalf of Plaintiff GE, along
25
with Stuart Drake. Paul Zidlicky and James Coleman appeared on behalf of Plaintiff National
26
Petrochemical & Refiners Assoc.
27
28

1

1
2

BACKGROUND
This action involves two consolidated cases challenging the California Low Carbon Fuel

3

Standard (“LCFS”) on the grounds that it violates the Commerce Clause and is preempted by federal

4

law. This motion to compel is brought against Rocky Mountain Plaintiffs RFA and GE.

5

The Rocky Mountain Plaintiffs filed their action on December 23, 2009. On November 1,

6

2010, the Rocky Mountain Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. In

7

response, Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors filed oppositions to the motion and a rule 56(d)

8

motion seeking responses to certain discovery. The Rocky Mountain Plaintiffs did not oppose the

9

rule 56(d) motion and on January 14, 2011, the Court ordered the Rocky Mountain Plaintiffs to

10
11

respond to the limited discovery.
On February 14, 2011, Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors filed this motion to compel

12

against RFA and GE, two trade associations whose members produce ethanol for use in motor fuels.

13

Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors seek to compel responses to the Court ordered discovery

14

and/or impose evidentiary sanctions.

15

The parties filed their joint statement on March 11, 2011.

16

Initial disclosures have not occurred. On October 13, 2010, the Court set a briefing schedule

17

for summary judgment motions and did not further schedule the action. There are three motions for

18

summary judgment currently pending. Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors also filed a renewed

19

rule 56(d) motion on February 18, 2011.

20

DISCUSSION

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party “may obtain discovery

22

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including

23

the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other

24

tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable

25

matter.”

26
27
28

Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors seek to compel responses to numerous interrogatories
and document requests seeking information about RFA and GE’s members. They argue that RFA
2

1

and GE brought this action on behalf of their members, alleging harm only to their members rather

2

than to associations directly. Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors believe that the discovery will

3

probe the impact of the LCFS on the members of RFA and GE.

4

In responding to the discovery, GE and RFA state that they have provided all information in

5

their possession. GE and RFA explain their members are business entities that do not provide the

6

associations with confidential business information.

7

At the hearing, the parties agreed that RFA and GE do not have the requested information in

8

their possession, custody or control. The Court is therefore unable to compel RFA and GE to

9

provide further responses.

10

Nevertheless, Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors are entitled to the identities of RFA and

11

GE’s members and can seek discovery directly from the members. RFA and GE state that they have

12

provided a list of members and addresses in response to written discovery.

13

ORDER

14

Based on the above, Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor’s motion to compel is DENIED.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:
3b142a

April 11, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3