Waste Action Project v. Draper Valley Holdings LLC

Filing 35

ORDER granting pltf's 19 Motion to Compel; denying pltf's 26 Motion to Compel as moot by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
_______________________________________
)
WASTE ACTION PROJECT,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
DRAPER VALLEY HOLDINGS, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No. C12-1870RSL

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS
TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

14

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel” (Dkt.
15

# 19) and “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Document Production from Perdue Foods, LLC” (Dkt.
16

# 26). Plaintiff sued defendant Draper Valley Holdings, LLC, for alleged violations of the Clean
17

Water Act related to discharges from its poultry slaughterhouse in Mount Vernon, Washington,
18

between March 2008 and June 2012. At the time the complaint was filed, Draper Valley was
19

owned by Coleman Natural Foods, which in turn was owned by Perdue Foods, LLC (or a related
20

entity). In December 2012, Draper Valley’s discharge permit was transferred to Perdue.
21

In April 2013, plaintiff issued requests for production to Draper Valley seeking
22

Perdue’s audited financial statements and tax returns for 2011 through the present. Draper
23

Valley objected, arguing that because Perdue is not a party to this action, its financial situation is
24

irrelevant. When plaintiff filed a motion to compel production, Draper Valley for the first time
25

argued that it did not have possession, custody, or control over the documents and they would
26
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS
TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

1

have to be sought directly from Perdue. Four days after Draper Valley filed its opposition,

2

plaintiff served a Rule 45 subpoena on Perdue seeking the same documents. The subpoena was

3

issued by this court, served on Perdue’s registered agent in Washington, and demanded

4

production here in Seattle. The financial records sought were located in Maryland.
Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the

5
6
7

parties, the Court finds as follows:
(1) Perdue’s financial records are relevant to a determination of the economic impact of

8

any penalty that might be assessed in this action and may also contain information regarding the

9

profitability of Draper Valley during the alleged period of noncompliance. See Idaho

10

Conservation League v. Atlanta Gold Corp., 879 F. Supp.2d 1148, 1167 (D. Idaho 2012).

11

Because the liability and penalty phases of this litigation are proceeding concurrently, discovery

12

regarding these issues is not, as Perdue would have it, premature.

13
14
15

(2) Draper Valley has waived all objections other than relevance and shall produce the
requested documents as discussed below.1
(3) The Court has considered Perdue’s overbreadth and confidentiality objections.

16

Although the requests for production are appropriately tailored to obtain information regarding

17

the economic benefits of non-compliance and the economic impact of potential penalties,

18

Perdue’s financial documents are not publicly available and are arguably entitled to some

19

protection from public disclosure. Draper Valley’s production of the requested financial

20

statements and tax returns shall, therefore, be subject to the protections set forth in the Stipulated

21

Protective Order (Dkt. # 14) entered in this case on August 30, 2013. The documents – and the

22

information contained therein – shall be used only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to

23

settle this litigation.

24
25
26

1

Because compliance with the subpoena served on Draper Valley is being compelled, the Court
need not resolve the procedural irregularities surrounding the subpoena served on Perdue.
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS
TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

-2-

1

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel production from

2

Draper Valley (Dkt. # 19) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production from Perdue

3

(Dkt. # 26) is DENIED as moot.

4
5

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2014.

A
Robert S. Lasnik

6
7

United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS
TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

-3-