Northern California River Watch v. Golden Technology Company et al

Filing 50

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 23, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/28/2009: # 1 Corrected Order) (whalc1, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

consolidated schedule moving forward. Because these two cases are so similar in almost every aspect, the parties' proposed stipulated schedule will not simply be "rubber stamped." Additionally, the parties are reminded that no motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are currently pending before the undersigned with respect to either of these consolidated actions. As such, protests over whether plaintiff has properly satisfied the notice requirements for its RCRA claims -- which is required for federal subject matter jurisdiction -- cannot be used as a shield against discovery.* IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 23, 2009.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

* A brief comment on this topic. Defendants, in their opposition brief to this discovery dispute, argue that plaintiff failed to give notice to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, which defendants claim is the "state solid waste management agency" to whom notice must be given under the RCRA (Dkt. No. 47 at 2). However, a brief glance at California Public Resources Code Section 40508 indicates that the California Integrated Waste Management Board -- to whom notice was given -- has been "designated as the state solid waste management agency for all purposes stated in the [RCRA]." While this comment does not constitute a final determination of this issue, defendants should consider this designation before raising the argument again. 2