Golden Gate Way, LLC v. Enercon Services, Inc. et al

Filing 61

Order by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse Re: 60 Discovery Letter Brief. (agtlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GOLDEN GATE WAY, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 20-cv-03077-EMC (AGT)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 60
ENERCON SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ERM has asked the undersigned to compel GGW to supplement its responses to Requests
for Admission Nos. 1–4 and 11, and to Interrogatories Nos. 1–4, 8–10, and 13–15.

14

Judge Chen has permitted the parties to engage in only “limited discovery in preparation

15

for meaningful mediation.” ECF No. 45 at 1. As to written discovery requests in particular, he

16

has permitted ERM to propound only “focused written discovery” regarding “any amendment of

17

the complaint and the basis therefore,” “current site conditions,” and the “basis of any claims of

18

unenforceability of [contractual] limitations on liability.” Id. at 1–2.

19

Having reviewed the discovery requests in question, the undersigned finds that only one of

20

them, RFA No. 11, falls within the categories of discovery currently permitted. The other

21

requests, which largely focus on questions of causation and on how conditions at the site have

22

changed over time, exceed the bounds of the current discovery order. ERM’s request to compel

23

further responses to these requests is thus denied, without prejudice to ERM renewing its request

24

after the next case management conference, if mediation is unsuccessful.

25

As for RFA No. 11, which asks GGW to “admit that contamination at the subject property

26

continues to migrate in groundwater from beneath the subject property at least yearly,” ECF No.

27

60-1 at 8 (emphasis omitted), this request relates to current site conditions at the property, which is

28

an authorized subject for pre-mediation discovery. ERM’s objections to RFA No. 11 (i.e., that the

1

request calls for premature disclosure of expert opinions and analysis, and that the request is

2

overbroad and ambiguous) are unpersuasive. GGW must amend its response either to admit, to

3

deny, or to provide a qualified response to this request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2021

6
7
ALEX G. TSE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2