Northern California River Watch v. Oakland Maritime Support Services, Inc. et al

Filing 81

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Dkt. Nos. 49 and 52.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 11/17/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, et al. 11 Plaintiffs 12 13 14 ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Dkt. Nos. 49 and 52.) v. OAKLAND MARITIME SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 No. C 10-3912 CW (JSC) / This is a Clean Water Act (“CWA”) lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants (1) 18 to permit three site inspections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, and (2) and 19 for production of financial information relevant to the penalties sought in this action. After 20 carefully considering the parties’ written submissions, and having heard oral argument on 21 November 17, 2011, for the reasons stated during oral argument, the Court GRANTS 22 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Dkt. No. 49) in part and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for 23 Sanctions (Dkt. No. 52). 24 1. Plaintiffs, with Defendants’ consent, have already completed one “dry” 25 inspection. Defendants are ordered to permit two “wet” inspections not to exceed five hours 26 each. As the Complaint is not limited to the vehicle maintenance area, the inspections may 27 cover the entire facility and are not limited to the maintenance area. 28 2. Defendants are ordered to comply with Plaintiffs’ request for financial documents. Such documents are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants should pay a 1 penalty for their alleged CWA violation. That the penalty will ultimately be paid to the 2 government rather than Plaintiffs does not impact the documents’ relevance. The Court will 3 determine an appropriate penalty, if any, based on Plaintiffs’ argument–an argument they 4 cannot make if they have not seen the financial information. The Court also declines 5 Defendants’ implicit invitation to stay any financial information discovery until after a 6 finding of liability. This case is scheduled for a single bench trial in November 2012. 7 Moreover, discovery has already been delayed due to Defendants’ previous counsel’s 8 unavailability. Plaintiffs shall produce the financial documents within 60 days after the date 9 of this Order. The parties should work together to negotiate the terms of a protective order to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 govern this production. 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: November 17, 2011 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 15 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?