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)

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