rosamond community services 6 district 5 telecopier: … · 1 request for production no.36...

11

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLPERIC L. GARNER, Bar No. 130665JEFFREY V. DUNN, Bar No. 131926STEFANIE D. HEDLUND, Bar No. 239787

5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1500IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614TELEPHONE: (949) 263-2600TELECOPIER: (949) 260-0972

Attorneys for DefendantROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICESDISTRICT

EXEMPT FROM FILING FEESUNDER GOVERNMENT CODESECTION 6103

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATERCASES

Included Actions:Los Angeles County Waterworks District No.40 v. Diamond Farming Co., Superior Courtof California, County of Los Angeles, CaseNo. BC 325201;

Los Angeles County Waterworks District No.40 v. Diamond Farming Co., Superior Courtof California, County of Kern, Case No. 5-1500-CV-254-348;

Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. v. City ofLancaster, Diamond Farming Co. v. City ofLancaster, Diamond Farming Co. v. PalmdaleWater Dist., Superior Court of California,County of Riverside, Case Nos. RIC 353 840,RIC 344 436, RIC 344 668.

RELATED CASE TO JUDICIALCOUNCIL COORDINATIONPROCEEDING NO. 4408

ROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICESDISTRICT’S RESPONSES TOANAVERDE, LLC’S REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(SET TWO)

J

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO ANAVERDE, LLC’S REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO

1 PROPOUNDING PARTY: ANAVERDE, LLC

2 RESPONDING PARTY: ROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

3 SET NUMBER: Two (2)

4

5 Defendant Rosamond Community Services District (“District”) hereby responds to the

6 Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, propounded by Anaverde, LLC (“Anaverde”) as

7 follows:

8

9 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

10

. 11 The District is in the process of conducting its investigation and discovery in thisJ L) (0

12 action. Consequently, the District responds to these Demands to the best of its knowledge, but incow5z

. 13 doing so, reserves the right to amend its Response at a future date. The District further reservesoI-<

ff3 14 the right to offer, at time of tnal, facts, testimony or other evidence discovered subsequent to and

15 not included in this response, and assumes no obligation to voluntarily supplement or amend this

16 Response to reflect such facts, testimony or other evidence. The documents will be available for

17 inspection and copying on September 22, 2008, beginning at 9:00 a.m., at The District’s counsel’s

18 office, located at 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1500, frvine, CA.

19

20 GENERAL OBJECTIONS

21

22 By responding to Anaverde’s Demand for Inspection and Production of

23 Documents, Set Two, the District does not concede the relevancy or materiality of any request, or

24 of the subject to which such request refers. Each response is made subject to all objections as to

25 competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, as well as any or all other

26 objections and grounds which would require exclusion of evidence. The District reserves the

27 right to make any and all such objections at trial and at any other proceeding relating to this

28 action. The District objects to each of Anaverde’s demands to the extent any is directed to any2


1 information or document that is subject to the attorney-client, attorney work product, deliberative

2 process privilege or is confidential and not subject to discovery on any other grounds. The

3 District will not supply or render any information or documents protected from discovery under

4 these or any other applicable privileges. To the extent any Request relates to expert witness

5 investigation, the District will provide documents at such time as required by applicable Court

6 Order and by the Code of Civil Procedure. If privileged information or documents are produced,

7 such production is inadvertent, and the District demands the immediate return of any document

8 containing such information. The District further objects to the requests for production to the

9 extent they seek information or materials not presently in the District’s possession. The District

10 further objects to these discovery requests on the grounds that they are untimely under Code of

11 Civil Procedure section 2024.020. The District’s investigation and discovery in this case are_I i) C.O

12 ongoing. The following responses are given without prejudice to the Districts’ right to produce orcOw5z

13 rely on any evidence subsequently discovered. The specific responses and objections given

14 below are submitted without prejudice to, and without waiving, any of these general objections

15 even though the general objections are not expressly set forth in each response.

16

17 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

18

19 The District incorporates fully the foregoing Preliminary Statement and General

20 Objections into each of the following specific objections and responses, and no specific objection

21 or response shall be construed to waive any of the General Objections.

22

23

24

25

26

27

283


1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.32 (ERRONEOUSLY DENOTED AS NO. 1): 1

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO the surface water hydrology-

3 quantification as described in Figure 4.1-1 of the Problem Statement Report dated June 26, 2008.

4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.32 (ERRONEOUSLY DENOTED

5 ASNO.1):

6 The District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

7 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this request to the extent that by seeking

8 all DOCUMENTS that “refer or RELATE TO” the subject of this request it seeks production of

9 materials protected by the attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative-process privileges.

10 Without waiving, and subject to, those objections, the District will produce all responsive, non

. 11 privileged, documents in its possession, custody, and control.CO CO

12OUJDZUi

13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.33 (ERRONEOUSLY DENOTED AS NO. 2):oI-j<

14 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO the back up data and/or analysis

15 used to support Figure 4.1-1 of the Problem Statement Report dated June 26, 2008.


17 ASNO.2):





22 Without waiving, and subject to, those objections, the District will produce all responsive, non-

23 privileged, documents in its possession, custody, and control.

24

25 ‘ The propounding party previously served a total of 31 Requests for Production as part of Set One of itsRequests for Production. Rather than numbering its second set of Requests for Production consecutively as required

26 under Code of Civil Procedure 2031.030(a), the propounding party began its second set of Requests for Productionagain at Request for Production No. 1. For purposes of clarity, the District has identified the Requests for Production

27 (Set Two), and its corresponding responses, by the sequential number of the Request (resuming where Set Oneconcluded) and placed the erroneous original numbers the propounding party assigned to this second set of Request

28 for Production in parenthesis.


1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.34 (ERRONEOUSLY DENOTED AS NO. 3):

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO the City Ranch Creek NR data

3 point as referenced in the Problem Statement Report dated June 26, 2008.


5 AS NO. 3):




9 materials protected by the attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative-process privileges. The

10 District further objects to this Request to the extent that it calls for materials protected by the

11 privacy rights of third parties. Without waiving, and subject to, those objections, the District will_J L() (

12 produce all responsive, non-privileged, documents in its possession, custody, and control.0w5zw—ø

-o

14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.35 (ERRONEOUSLY DENOTED AS NO. 4):.

15 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO precipitation records in the

16 Antelope Valley Watershed.


18 AS NO.4):





23 Without waiving, and subject to, those objections, the District will produce all responsive, non-


25

26

27

285

ROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO ANAVERDE, EEC’S REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO

1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.36 (ERRONEOUSLY DENOTED AS NO.5):

2 To the extent not included in Request For Production Number 5, any and all

3 DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO precipitation records at every gauging station in the

4 Antelope Valley Watershed.


6 AS NO.5):





11 District further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous as to the what_J L) CO

12 the propounding party means by “To the extent not included in Request for Production Numbercouj5zw—ø

13 5” when the propounding party denoted this Request as Request for Production Number 5.LL°JJ

14 Without waiving, and subject to, those objections, the District will produce all responsive, non


16


18 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO precipitation records for adjacent

19 watersheds to the Antelope Valley Watershed.


21 AS NO.6):





26 District further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information not relevant to the

27 subject matter of this lawsuit, and therefore exceeds the scope of permissible discovery pursuant

28 to Code of Civil Procedure section 20 17.010.6



2 To the extent not included in Request For Production Number 7, any and all

3 DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO precipitation records at every gauging station in

4 adjacent watersheds to the Antelope Valley Watershed.


6 AS NO.7):





a..o•j 11 District further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous as to the what_J , Co

12 the propounding party means by “To the extent not included in Request for Production Number 7ØLUDZw—ø

13 when the propounding party denoted this Request as Request for Production Number 7. TheLLOJ

14 District further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information not relevant to the

15 subject matter of this lawsuit, and therefore exceeds the scope of permissible discovery pursuant

16 to Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.

17


19 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO the hydrology of the San Andreas

20 Fault Zone within the Antelope Valley Watershed.


22 AS NO.8):





27 District further objects to this Request on the ground that the phrase “San Andreas Fault Zone” is

287


1 vague and ambiguous such that the District cannot know what documents the propounding party

2 seeks by this Request.

3

4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.40 (ERRONEOUSLY DENOTED AS NO.91:

5 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO water evaporation data andlor

6 analysis in the Antelope Valley Watershed.


8 AS NO.91:



11 all DOCUMENTS that “refer or RELATE TO” the subject of this request it seeks production of- CO CO

12 materials protected by the attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative-process privileges.ØLLJDZw—ø

13 Without waiving, and subject to, those objections, the District will produce all responsive, nonLL°jj

OI—<14 privileged, documents in its possession, custody, and control.

15


17 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO man made water conveyances

18 created at the direction of the City of Palmdale within the Antelope Valley Watershed.


20 AS NO.101:





25 District further objects to this Request on the ground that the phrase “man made water

26 conveyances” is vague and ambiguous such that the District cannot know what documents the

27 propounding party seeks by this Request. The District further objects to this Request on the

288


1 ground that it seeks information from the District relating not to the District, but instead to an

2 unrelated third party.

3


5 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO man made water conveyances

6 created at the direction of the State of California (CalTrans) within the Antelope Valley

7 Watershed and specifically excluding the State Water Project conveyance.


9 AS NO.11):


11 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this request to the extent that by seekingJ l) (0

12 all DOCUMENTS that “refer or RELATE TO” the subject of this request it seeks production oføw5zw—ø

13 materials protected by the attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative-process pnvileges. TheUcO

oI—<14 District further objects to this Request on the ground that the phrase “man made water

15 conveyances” is vague and ambiguous such that the District cannot know what documents the

16 propounding party seeks by this Request. The District further objects to this Request on the

17 ground that it seeks information from the District relating not to the District, but instead to an

18 unrelated third party.

19


21 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO man made water conveyances that

22 convey water under, around or over the State Water Project within the Antelope Valley

23 Watershed.


25 AS NO.12):



28 all DOCUMENTS that “refer or RELATE TO” the subject of this request it seeks production of9



2 District further objects to this Request on the ground that the phrases “man made water

3 conveyances” and “convey water over, around or under the State Water Project” are vague and

4 ambiguous such that the District cannot know what documents the propounding party seeks by

5 this Request.

6


8 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO flood waters and/or flood events in

9 the Antelope Valley Watershed.


ao 11 AS NO.13):

12 The District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections asøw5z

CI 13 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this request to the extent that by seeking



16 District further objects to this request as irrelevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit, and

17 therefore exceeding the permissible scope of discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section

18 2017.010.

19


21 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO flood waters and/or flood events in

22 the Anaverde Creek Sub-basin.


24 AS NO.14):




28 materials protected by the attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative-process privileges. The10


1 District further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous as to the

2 meaning of the undefined term “Anaverde Creek Sub-basin” such that the District cannot know

3 what documents the propounding party seeks production of through this Request.

4


6 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO the pH levels measured at each

7 GROUNDWATER WELL over the last fifty years (along with the sampling date) in the Antelope

8 Valley Watershed.


10 AS NO.15):

11 The District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as_1 L) CØ

12 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this request to the extent that by seekingOw5zuJ—O

13 all DOCUMENTS that “refer or RELATE TO” the subject of this request it seeks production ofuor:j::i


15 District further objects to this request as overbroad as to time, and therefore unduly burdensome

16 and oppressive. Without waiving, and subject to, those objections, the District will produce all

17 responsive, non-privileged, documents in its possession, custody, and control.

18


20 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO the water chemistry of surface

21 waters in the Antelope Valley Watershed.


23 AS NO.16):





28 District further objects to this request on the ground that surface water is not relevant to the11


1 subject matter of this lawsuit, and therefore this Request exceeds the permissible scope of

2 discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.

3


5 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO individual mineral constituents

6 contained in surface waters within the Antelope Valley Watershed for the following: Sodium(Na),

7 calcium (Ca), potassium (k), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg, manganese (Mn), arsenic (As), selenium

8 (Se), boron (B), chloride (CL), sulfate (S04), bicoarbonate (HCO3), carbonate (CACO3), nitrate

9 (NO), silica (Si02), nitrogen(N), and TICN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen).

10

11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.48 (ERRONEOUSLY DENOTED_J It) (0

12 ASNO.17):

. 13 The Distnct incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections asLLM




17 District further objects to this request on the ground that surface water is not relevant to the



20


22 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO surface water ionic chemistry in

23 the Antelope Valley Watershed over the last fifty years.


25 ASNO.18):






2 District further objects to the term “ionic chemistry” as vague and ambiguous such that the

3 District cannot know exactly what documents the propounding party seeks through this Request.

4 The District further objects to this request on the ground that surface water is not relevant to the



7


9 Any and all DOCTJMENTS that refer or RELATE TO total dissolved solids (“TDS”) in

10 surface waters in the Antelope Valley Watershed over the past 50 years.

g 11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.50 (ERRONEOUSLY DENOTEDIfl CD

12 ASNO.19):

. 13 The District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections asuoöF1

o-J<14 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this request to the extent that by seeking



17 District further objects to this request on the ground that surface water is not relevant to the

18 subject matter of this lawsuit, and therefore this Request exceeds the pennissible scope of


20


22 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO electricity consumption for each

23 GROUNDWATER WELL in the Antelope Valley Watershed for the past 50 years.


25 AS NO. 20):






2 District further objects to this Request as overly broad as to time, rendering it unduly burdensome

3 and oppressive. Without waiving, and subject to, those objections, the District will produce all

4 responsive, non-privileged, documents in its possession, custody, and control which it can

5 reasonably access and produce.

6


8 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO electrical meters for each

9 GROUNDWATER WELL in the Antelope Valley Watershed for the past 50 years.


o. 11 ASNO.21):

12 The District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections asCOuj5zw—O. 13 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this request to the extent that by seeking

uorj:i




17 and oppressive. The District further objects to this Request in that it is vague and ambiguous as

18 to how, if at all, the documents requested differ from those sought in Request No. 51(20) above,

19 such that the District cannot know what additional documents the propounding party seeks

20 through this Request.

21


23 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO electricity consumption and the

24 identity of the consuming GROUNDWATER WELL in the Antelope Valley Watershed for the

25 past 50 years.

26

27

2814



2 AS NO.22):



5 all DOCUIVIENTS that “refer or RELATE TO” the subject of this request it seeks production of




9 to how, if at all, the documents requested differ from those sought in Request No. 51 (20) above,

10 such that the District cannot know what additional documents the propounding party seeks

11 through this Request._I U) CD

12(‘)w5z


O 14 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO aquifer testing m the Anaverde

15 Creek Basin.


17 ASNO.23):





22 District further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to time. The District further

23 objects to this Request in that it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the undefined terms

24 “aquifer testing” and “Anaverde Creek Basin” such that the District cannot know what documents

25 the propounding party seeks through this Request.

26

27

2815



2 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO GROUNDWATER WELL pump

3 testing (such as discharge) for each GROUNDWATER WELL in the Antelope Valley Watershed

4 for the past 50 years.


6 AS NO. 24):





11 District further objects to this Request as overly broad as to time, rendering it unduly burdensome.J LC) (0

12 and oppressive. The District further objects to this Request in that it is vague and ambiguous asOw5z

13 to the meaning of the term “pump testing” such that the District cannot know what documents the

14 propounding party seeks through this Request.

15


17 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO GROUNDWATER WELL step-

18 discharge testing for each GROUNDWATER WELL in the Antelope Valley Watershed for the

19 past 50 years.


21 AS NO. 25):







2816


1 to the meaning of the term “step-discharge testing” such that the District cannot know what

2 documents the propounding party seeks through this Request.

3


5 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO GROUNDWATER WELL step-

6 draw down testing for each GROUNDWATER WELL in the Antelope Valley Watershed for the

7 past 50 years.


9 AS NO.26):


0 11 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this request to the extent that by seeking_J In (0

12 all DOCUMENTS that “refer or RELATE TO” the subject of this request it seeks production ofOw3zLLJ—o

. 13 materials protected by the attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative-process privileges. TheLL0’j



16 to the meaning of the term “step-draw down testing” such that the District cannot know what

17 documents the propounding party seeks through this Request.

18


20 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO raw water quality prior to treatment

21 for purposes of providing drinking water in the Antelope Valley Watershed for the past 50 years.


23 AS NO.27):





28 District further objects to this Request as overly broad as to time, rendering it unduly burdensome17



2 to the meaning of the phrase “raw water quality prior to treatment” such that the District cannot

3 know what documents the propounding party seeks through this Request.

4


6 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO raw water quality after treatment

7 for purposes of providing drinking water in the Antelope Valley Watershed for the past 50 years.


9 AS NO. 28):


g . 11 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this request to the extent that by seeking__l Lfl CD

12 all DOCUMENTS that “refer or RELATE TO” the subject of this request it seeks production ofCI UI DX

. 13 materials protected by the attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative-process privileges. TheUoorj:i


ffL 15 and oppressive. The District further objects to this Request in that it is vague and ambiguous as

16 to the meaning of the phrase “raw water quality after treatment” such that the District cannot

17 know what documents the propounding party seeks through this Request.

18


20 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO publicly issued water quality

21 reports on drinking water quality in the Antelope Valley Watershed for the past 50 years


23 AS NO. 29):





28 District further objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad as to time, and18


1 therefore unduly burdensome and oppressive. Without waiving, and subject to, those objections,

2 the District will produce all responsive, non-privileged, documents in its possession, custody, and

3 control which can reasonably be gathered and produced.

4


6 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO the data which was used in

7 compiling drinking water quality reports in the Antelope Valley Watershed for the past 50 years.


9 AS NO.30):


11 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this request to the extent that by seekingJ If) (0

12 all DOCUMENTS that “refer or RELATE TO” the subject of this request it seeks production ofc’w5zw—ø

13 materials protected by the attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative-process privileges. Theu-oooI-<

14 District further objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad as to time and scope,

15 and therefore unduly burdensome and oppressive.

16


18 Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer or RELATE TO any drilling of any type of

19 GROUNDWATER WELL in the Anaverde Creek Basin.


21 AS NO. 31):





26 District further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to time. The District further

27 objects to this request as overbroad in its scope, and therefore unduly burdensome and oppressive.

28 The District further objects to this Request in that it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of19


1 the undefined term “Anaverde Creek Basin” such that the District cannot know what documents

2 the propounding party seeks through this Request.

3Dated: September 9, 2008

5By

6

JFREY V. DU1iNTEFANIE D. HEDLUISiDAttorneys for Defendant

8 ROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICESDISTRICT

10

DQ• 11_J 0J L() CO

12C”UJDZ

13LL°J

14

go 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2820

BEST BEST ER LLP


1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, Roberta Hoffner, declare:

3 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, andnot a party to the within action; my business address is Best Best & Krieger LLP, 5 Park Plaza,

4 Suite 1500, Irvine, California 92614. On September 9, 2008, I served the within document(s):

5 ROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TOANAVERDE, LLC’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,

6 (SET TWO)

7 by posting the document(s) listed above to the Santa Clara County Superior Court

8website in regard to the Antelope Valley Groundwater matter.

9by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereonfully prepaid, in the United States mail at Irvine, California addressed as set forth

10 below.

ii Q by causing personal delivery by ASAP Corporate Services of the document(s)listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.

12

13by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the

E address(es) set forth below.oI-

14 I caused such envelope to be delivered via overnight delivery addressed as

15 indicated on the attached service list. Such envelope was deposited for deliveryby Federal Express following the firm’s ordinary business practices.

16I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing

17 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. PostalService on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I

18 am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellationdate or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

19I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

20 above is true and correct.

21 Executed on September 9, 2008, at Irvine, California.

24Rob*jJzToffher

25

26

27

2820
