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)

Download PDF
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

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?