150 Spear Street Associates L.P. v. VWR International, LLC et al
Filing
62
Discovery Order; Order Continuing Discovery Hearing. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 2/15/2018. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
150 SPEAR STREET ASSOCIATES L.P.,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
v.
Case No. 17-cv-03246-JST (MEJ)
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL
Re: Dkt. No. 54
VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
The undersigned has reviewed the parties’ briefs on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Mot.,
14
Dkt. No. 54; Opp’n, Dkt. No. 57; Reply, Dkt. No. 60. The February 22, 2018 hearing on the
15
Motion is CONTINUED to allow the parties to contemplate the following guidance:
16
(1) The way in which RFAs 4-6 are currently phrased allow Defendants to respond with
17
their current responses. For example, Defendants’ objection that incorporating the Lease’s 50-line
18
definition of “Hazardous Materials” renders the RFAs compound is well-taken. Defendants’
19
alleged disingenuousness does not provide this Court with a basis for compelling them to respond
20
further. Nevertheless, the Court is inclined to allow Plaintiff to propound new RFAs that are
21
reframed with more specificity. For instance, Plaintiff may propound new RFAs asking
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants to admit or deny that each of the chemicals listed on the appendix to the Lease is a
hazardous material (Warden Decl., Ex. A, Dkt. No. 54-2) or that each of the chemicals discussed
in the Brownfields Application (id., Ex. C, Dkt. No. 54-4) was found on the Property, that
Defendants used them on the Property, and/or that Defendants contaminated the Property with
each chemical. Defendants may, for example, admit the chemical was found, but respond that
they can neither admit nor deny that they used or are responsible for the contamination of the
Property by such chemical(s) because they lack records regarding the use of or contamination by
1
that chemical. The Court encourages the parties to reach a less burdensome solution on their own.
2
(2) Defendants’ objections to RFAs 13-18, 29, 31-32 do not appear to be well-taken.
3
(3) Defendants’ responses to RFAs 33-38 appear complete, although Defendants have an
4
5
6
7
ongoing duty to supplement them based on their continued investigation.
(4) The non-confidential Prologis settlement appears relevant and Federal Rule of
Evidence 408 does not govern discoverability of information contained in the settlement.
(5) Given the parties’ dispute over the definition of “the incident” as used in
8
Interrogatories 2-25, the Court is inclined to allow Plaintiff to propound new Interrogatories that
9
simply omit this phrase and, if necessary, to propound new interrogatories for each of the
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
compounds listed on the Lease appendix or in the Brownfields Application. Once again, the Court
encourages the parties to reach a less burdensome solution on their own.
(6) Plaintiff served 46 interrogatories beyond the presumptive limit of 25 that is set forth
in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). Plaintiff did not seek to reach an agreement with
Defendants regarding additional discovery and did not seek leave of Court to propound the
additional interrogatories before doing so. Plaintiff instead moves to compel, after the fact,
Defendants’ responses to the additional interrogatories. This is improper. The undersigned will
revisit the issue after the parties have resolved their disputes involving the RFAs and
Interrogatories 1-25.
18
No later than March 7, 2018, the parties shall submit a joint statement regarding the status
19
of their discovery disputes and/or a request for an in-person meet and confer. The Court will
20
reschedule the hearing date, if necessary, at that time.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: February 15, 2018
24
25
26
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?