Gould Electronics Inc. v. Livingston County Road Commission
Filing
73
OPINION & ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's Compliance with Previous Court Order (Dkt. 60 ); (2) Granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Compliance with Previous Court Order (Dkt. 62 ); and (3) Denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery (Dkt. 67 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GOULD ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-cv-11130
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
vs.
LIVINGSTON CTY. ROAD COMM’N,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
OPINION & ORDER
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S COMPLIANCE
WITH PREVIOUS COURT ORDER (Dkt. 60); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH PREVIOUS COURT
ORDER (Dkt. 62); AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY (Dkt. 67)
For a second time, this matter is before the Court on competing motions from the parties
regarding the scope of the claims in this case. Plaintiff Gould Electronics, Inc. (“Gould”) seeks to
compel Defendant Livingston County Road Commission’s (“LCRC”) compliance with the Court’s
previous order limiting the permissible scope of LCRC’s answer to Gould’s amended complaint
(Dkt. 60). LCRC, in turn, seeks to compel Gould’s compliance with the Court’s previous order
limiting the permissible scope of Gould’s amended complaint (Dkt. 62). Finally, LCRC seeks to
compel Gould’s answers to discovery requests (Dkt. 67). Because oral argument will not aid the
decisional process, the motions will be decided based on the parties’ briefing. See E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(f)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants both parties’ motions
to compel compliance and denies LCRC’s motion to compel answers to discovery.
1
I.
BACKGROUND
The factual background has been set forth in the Court’s previous opinions and need not
be repeated here. In brief summary, Gould initiated a lawsuit against LCRC on July 6, 2009 (the
“Prior Action”), Gould Elec., Inc. v. Livingston Cty. Rd. Cmm’n, No. 09-12633 (E.D. Mich.
2009), and, on May 29, 2012, the parties stipulated to dismiss the action without prejudice in
accordance with a tolling agreement (the “Tolling Agreement”), see Stip. Order of Dismissal, Ex.
A to Am. Compl. (Dkt. 22-2). As permitted under the Tolling Agreement, Gould initiated a new
case on April 11, 2017, alleging violations of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) (“CERCLA”); and Michigan’s Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 324.20126, 324.20126a
(“NREPA”); and claims that it should be granted access to LCRC’s property to conduct reasonable
response activities. See generally Am. Compl. (Dkt. 22).
In an opinion and order entered on June 27, 2019 (the “June 27 Opinion”), this Court
confronted the parties’ disputes regarding the scope of the current proceedings as set forth in the
pleadings. See 6/27/19 Op. at 4 (Dkt. 56). Given the parties’ stipulation in the Tolling Agreement
to be bound by the record of the Prior Action, the Court held that their respective pleadings
impermissibly expanded the current proceedings beyond the scope of the Prior Action. Id. at 4.
Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to file amended pleadings consistent with its opinion.
Id. at 7. Gould filed its second amended complaint on July 8, 2019 (Dkt. 57), and LCRC filed its
amended answer and counter-complaint on July 15, 2019 (Dkt. 58). In the present set of motions,
the parties again raise the same objections regarding the scope of the proceedings, arguing that
their respective opponent’s amended pleadings fail to conform to the rulings set forth in the June
27 Opinion.
2
II.
ANALYSIS
A. Motions to Compel Compliance
Gould argues that LCRC’s amended answer asserting nineteen affirmative defenses runs
afoul of the June 27 Opinion, which limited LCRC to the six defenses raised in the joint final
pretrial order (“JFPO”) in the Prior Action. Pl. Mot. to Compel Compliance at 2 (Dkt. 60). Gould
is correct. In its June 27 Opinion, the Court denied LCRC’s motion to amend its answer to assert
eighteen affirmative defenses when it had asserted only six defenses in the JFPO. 6/27/19 Op. at
6. The Court ordered LCRC to file an amended answer and counter-complaint “asserting only the
defenses and counter-claims, respectively, that are set forth in the JFPO.” Id. However, LCRC’s
amended answer, filed on July 15, 2019, raises nineteen affirmative defenses, including the same
eighteen defenses previously limited by the June 27 Opinion and the additional defense that
Gould’s second amended complaint violates the June 27 Opinion. Compare Answer to 2d Am.
Compl. (Dkt. 58) with Proposed 2d Am. Answer, Ex. B to Def. Mot. to Amend (Dkt. 44-2).
LCRC’s amended answer, therefore, fails to comply with the Court’s June 27 Opinion.
LCRC, in turn, contends that Gould’s second amended complaint exceeds the scope of the
Prior Action. Def. Mot. to Compel Compliance at 4 (Dkt. 62). The Court agrees. In the June 27
Opinion, the Court rejected Gould’s attempt to expand the pleadings by referencing salt
contamination when trichloroethylene (“TCE”) contamination was “the sole identified
contamination referenced in Gould’s complaint in the Prior Action.” 6/27/19 Op. at 5. The Court
ordered Gould to file a second amended complaint, with the caution that “[a]ny allegation in the
Amended Complaint that is inconsistent with the JFPO or goes beyond the relief previously sought
– such as Gould’s current effort to seek relief regarding salt contamination – is deemed
inoperative.” Id. at 6-7. However, the general factual allegations set forth in the second amended
3
complaint, filed on July 8, 2019, define “LCRC Contamination” as LCRC’s release of “hazardous
substances and other contaminants, including but not limited to TCE.” 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 12 (Dkt.
57) (emphasis added). Although Gould contends that its complaint in the Prior Action similarly
alleged that “LCRC released hazardous substances, including TCE,” Compl. at ¶ 24, Ex. E to Pl.
Resp. (Dkt. 65-6) (emphasis added), TCE is the only contaminant identified in the JFPO – a
document memorializing the parties’ agreement as to the issues to be presented at trial in the Prior
Action, see JFPO, Gould Elec. v. Livingston Cty. Rd. Comm’n, No. 09-12633 (E.D. Mich. May
25, 2012), at 2-14 (Dkt. 147). Therefore, the allegations in Gould’s second amended complaint
suggesting possible contamination by substances other than TCE fail to comply with the June 27
Opinion.
Next, LCRC contends that by alleging LCRC’s liability for “response costs,” Count II of
Gould’s second amended complaint not only asserts an NREPA contribution claim under Mich.
Comp. Laws § 324.20129 but also adds an NREPA cost recovery claim under Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 324.20126a. Def. Mot. to Compel Compliance at 8 (quoting 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 44). The June 27
Opinion made clear that because Gould asserted only an NREPA contribution claim and not a cost
recovery claim in the Prior Action, Gould is likewise limited to stating an NREPA contribution
claim in the current proceedings. 6/27/19 Op. at 5, 7. Gould concedes that Count II of its complaint
“asserts a[n] NREPA contribution claim, expressly alleging that [LCRC] is liable under Mich.
Comp. Laws § 324.20129.” Pl. Resp. at 6 (Dkt. 65). However, to the extent that Gould’s second
amended complaint purports to state an NREPA cost recovery claim under Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 324.20126a, this pleading fails to comply with the June 27 Opinion.
Given that both parties have filed pleadings that fail to comply with the Court’s June 27
Opinion, they are to file amended pleadings consistent with this Opinion and Order and with the
4
June 27 Opinion. Specifically, LCRC is ordered to file an amended answer limiting its affirmative
defenses to those set forth in the JFPO.
Gould is ordered to file an amended complaint
(1) eliminating allegations suggesting possible contamination by substances other than TCE and
(2) expressly limiting Count II to an NREPA contribution claim under Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 324.20129. Any allegations in the parties’ pleadings that fail to conform to the Court’s directives
will be deemed inoperative, and further noncompliance will result in sanctions, including the
award of reasonable attorney fees incurred by a party forced to compel the opposing party’s
compliance.
B. Motion to Compel Discovery Answers
Finally, in its motion to compel discovery answers, LCRC argues that Gould failed to
respond to interrogatories or produce documents regarding the timeframe prior to July 6, 2009.
Many of LCRC’s discovery requests concern information predating July 6, 2009. For example,
LCRC’s interrogatories include the following inquiries: (1) whether Gould used TCE on its
property; (2) from whom Gould purchased TCE; and (3) how much TCE Gould used on a weekly
basis from 1961 through 1976. Pl. Resp. to Def. Disc. Reqs. at 5-7, Ex. B to Def. Mot. to Compel
Disc. (Dkt. 67-3). Gould responded that because its predecessor ceased operations on the property
in 1976, the requests exceeded the scope of discovery – limited under the Tolling Agreement to
data generated after July 6, 2009. Id. To the extent that the requests sought information generated
after July 6, 2009, Gould responded that it produced its consultant’s project files. Id. at 18-19.
The Tolling Agreement provides that in the event a new case is filed, “[t]he New Case shall
proceed to trial on an expedited basis, with any new discovery limited to data gathered regarding
the soil and groundwater contamination at issue and related analyses conducted thereon after July
6, 2009.” Tolling Agreement, Ex. C to Def. Mot. to Compel Disc. (Dkt. 67-4). The Tolling
5
Agreement also provides that “discovery . . . in the [Prior Action] shall be preserved as applicable
and binding” in any future litigation. Id. These provisions clearly limit the scope of discovery in
a newly filed action to any data and related analyses generated after July 6, 2009. As explained in
the June 27 Opinion, the current proceedings were “never conceived as an entirely new opportunity
to litigate, as if the Prior Action had never been filed;” instead “the parties were to pick up where
they left off should the settlement effort fail.” 6/27/19 Op. at 6. Accordingly, Gould is not entitled
to repeat the discovery that was completed in the Prior Action.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons provided, Gould’s motion to compel LCRC’s compliance with the June 27
Opinion (Dkt. 60) is granted; LCRC’s motion to compel Gould’s compliance with the June 27
Opinion (Dkt. 62) is granted; and LCRC’s motion to compel answers to discovery (Dkt. 67) is
denied. Gould must file a third amended complaint in conformity with this Opinion and Order on
or before October 11, 2019. LCRC must file an amended answer in conformity with this Opinion
seven days after service of the amended complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 27, 2019
Detroit, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
6
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?