Case Number: KC066276 Hearing Date: April 02, 2018 Dept: J

Re: USA Waste of California, Inc. etc. v. City of Irwindale, etc., et al. (KC066276)

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. TO FIRST SET OF INSPECTION DEMANDS; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1

Moving Party: (1) Defendant Commodity Trucking Acquisition, LLC; (2) Plaintiff USA Waste of California, Inc.

Respondent: Plaintiff USA Waste of California, Inc.; (2) Defendant Commodity Trucking Acquisition, LLC

POS: (1) and (2): Moving OK; Opposing OK; Reply OK

[PROCEDURAL NOTE: Counsel for plaintiff has combined two discovery motions into one. Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $60.00 filing fee prior to the hearing of the motion.]
This action arises from a dispute involving the filling of the Arrow Pit, a former open pit sand and gravel quarry consisting of approximately 65 acres of undeveloped land in the City of Irwindale (“City”). The complaint was filed on 8/26/13. On 10/15/13, this case was deemed related to case number KC066049, Irwindale Partners L.P. v. USA Waste of California, et al. The First Amended Complaint was filed February 13, 2014.
On 8/30/16, Dispatch Transportation, LLC dba Windrow Earth Transport (“Dispatch”) filed its Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition; on 9/1/16, Dispatch filed a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings.” On 11/8/16, a Declaratory Judgment as between plaintiff and City was entered. On 11/28/16, plaintiff dismissed its second and fourth causes of action, with prejudice.
On 9/21/17, Commodity Trucking Acquisition LLC (“CTA”) filed its Complaint in Intervention, asserting a cause of action therein for Declaratory Relief. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed 10/10/17, asserts causes of action against Defendants Dispatch and CTA for:

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
Unfair Competition (Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.)

On 10/10/17 USA Waste’s Motion For Leave to File Second Amended Complaint adding allegations against CTA was granted, and its proposed Second Amended Complaint was deemed filed and served that day.

The Final Status Conference is set for 9/17/18. A jury trial is set for 9/25/18.

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. TO FIRST SET OF INSPECTION DEMANDS:

Defendant Commodity Trucking Acquisition, LLC (“defendant”) moves for an order, per CCP § 2031.310, compelling Plaintiff USA Waste of California, Inc. to serve verified further responses, without objections, to its Inspection Demands, Set No. One, Nos. 1-5, 7-9, 11-13-29, 31, 34-36, 38-40, 42, 43, 45-57 and 60-63. Defendant also seeks sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $9,865.00.

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” CCP § 2031.310(a). “A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040…” CCP § 2031.310(b). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

“In the…specific context of a request to produce documents, a party who seeks to compel production must show ‘good cause’ for the request…but where…there is no privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010. “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement…’” Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 [citation omitted; emphasis theirs. “Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.) These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)” Id.

“Declarations are generally used to show the requisite ‘good cause’ for an order to compel inspection. The declarations must contain ‘specific facts’ rather than mere conclusions.” Weil & Brown, et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 8:1495.7. The Declaration of Anne Beehler (“Beehler”) fails to set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).

On 11/8/17, defendant served its Inspection Demands, Set No. One on plaintiff. (Beehler Decl., ¶ 3, Exhibit “A”). On 12/13/17, plaintiff served its responses thereto. (Id., ¶ 4, Exhibit “B”). The parties have met and conferred. (Id., ¶¶ 5-17, Exhibits “C”-“J”). On 1/29/18, plaintiff’s counsel Chad Chen (“Chen”) confirmed an extension of defendant’s deadline to move to compel further responses to 2/15/18. (Id., ¶ 14, Exhibit “H”).

The requests in dispute read as follows:

Demand No. 1: All DOCUMENTS YOU have filed in the ACTIONS. [The term “ACTIONS” was previously defined as “the present action, captioned USA Waste of California, Inc. v. City of Irwindale, et al., pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court, case no. KC066276; and the related case captioned Irwindale Partners L.P. v. USA Waste of California, Inc., adjudicated in the Los Angeles Superior Court, case no. KC066049”].

Demand No. 2: All discovery requests YOU served in the ACTIONS, including but not limited to inspection demands, requests for production, requests for admission, interrogatories, deposition notices, and subpoenas.

Demand No. 3: All discovery responses YOU served in the ACTIONS, including but not limited to responses and/or objections to inspection demands, requests for production, requests for admission, interrogatories, deposition notices.

Demand No. 4: All discovery responses YOU received in the ACTIONS, including but not limited to responses and/or objections to inspection demands, requests for production, requests for admission, interrogatories, deposition notices, and subpoenas.

Demand No. 5: All documents produced by YOU in the ACTIONS.

Demand No. 7: All documents produced by IRWINDALE PARTNERS in the ACTIONS.

Demand No. 8: All deposition transcripts in the ACTIONS.

Demand No. 9: All expert reports prepared for any party in this action.

Demand No. 11: All transcripts, briefs, exhibits and all other materials relating to the hearing described in Paragraph 28 of the Second Amended Complaint in which “the Court ruled that USA Waste had standing to bring its lawsuit against both the City and Dispatch.”

Demand No. 13: All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS relating to the negotiation of the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE. [The phrase “PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE” was previously defined as “that certain provision in Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release dated September 1, 2004, between the CITY and United Rock Products Corporation, which states:

Prioritization of Filling Activities. The parties agree that he City shall prioritize and require the refilling of the quarries in the City in the following order: United Quarry 1, then United Quarry 2. In accordance with the conditions of approval for the Quarry 2 CUP, however, the City may suspend commencement of reclamation of Quarry 2 one time only for such time as reclamation using third party fill is being conducted at another operator’s quarry in the City pursuant to City approval (a “Priority Quarry”). The suspension shall continued for so long as reclamation of the Priority Quarry is occurring. United’s obligation to fill Quarry 2 will recommend when such Priority Quarry has fully completed filling operations. During such suspension, United may utilize its own or its affiliate’s fill to reclaim Quarry 2 or Quarry 3 or perform slope remediation ordered by the City. The City agrees that it will not enter into an agreement with any other operator that prioritizes filing obligations of such operator ahead of United’s Quarry 1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall prevent the City from filling its own quarries using fill that would not otherwise be reasonably available to United. Additionally, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from approving the filling of any privately-owned quarry in the City, provided such quarry(ies) use fill that would not otherwise be reasonably available to United.”].

Demand No. 14: All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS relating to the rights and obligations of any parties under the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 15: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third-party, including but not limited to United Rock Products Corporation, JH Properties Inc., and IRWINDALE PARTNERS, relating to the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 16: All DOCUMENTS showing YOUR alleged right to enforce the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE, including but not limited to the purchase, transfer, or assignment of the rights of any party under the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 17: All DOCUMENTS showing the alleged assignment of the rights under the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE to YOU.

Demand No. 18: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and a third-party regarding the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE, from the period 2007 to 2014.

Demand No. 19: All DOCUMENTS that relate to YOUR claim the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE does not violate antitrust laws, including but not limited to the Sherman Act.

Demand No. 20: All of YOUR business models and prospectuses concerning the ARROW PIT. [The phrase “ARROW PIT” was previously defined as “the quarry identified by California Mine ID #91-19-0013, located at 1270 Arrow Highway at the southwest intersection of the 605 Freeway and Arrow Highway within the City of Irwindale, formerly known as the “United Pit No. 1.”].

Demand No. 21: All of YOUR financial statements, profit and loss statements, statements of cash flows, pro forma projections and the like concerning the ARROW PIT.

Demand No. 22: Any and all photographs of the ARROW PIT, including aerial photos.

Demand No. 23: All DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS detailing the dates and quantities of clean fill that went into the ARROW PIT, from the period 2007 to 2014.

Demand No. 24: All DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS detailing the dates and quantities of asphalt, concrete, brick, or other types of contaminated fill that went into the ARROW PIT, from the period 2007 to 2014.

Demand No. 25: All DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS concerning any fill material delivered by the CITY to the ARROW Pit, from the period 2007 to 2014.

Demand No. 26: All DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS concerning any fill material delivered by any third-party, not including the CITY to the ARROW PIT, from the period 2007 to 2014.

Demand No. 27: All order forms, invoices, or other DOCUMENTS identifying which third-parties, other than the CITY, deposited fill materials into the ARROW PIT, from the period 2007 to 2014.

Demand No. 28: All order forms, invoices, or other DOCUMENTS identifying the price YOU charged the CITY or any other third-party to deposit clean fill into the ARROW PIT, from the period 2007 to 2014.

Demand No. 29: All order forms, invoices, or other DOCUMENTS identifying the price YOU charged the CITY or any other third-party to deposit contaminated fill (such as asphalt, brick, or concrete) into the ARROW PIT, from the period 2007 to 2014.

Demand No. 31: The RFP. [The term “RFP” was previously defined as “the ‘Request for Proposals Irwindale Pit 1 Remediation and Reclamation’ issued by the CITY and ICRA on April 3, 2007, by which the CITY and the ICRA solicited bids for the remediation and reclamation to be performed at the MANNING PIT.” The phrase “MANNING PIT” was previously defined as “the mining pit located at the 5100 block of Vincent Avenue, south of Arrow Highway, between Allen Drive and Vincent Avenue in the City of Irwindale”].

Demand No. 34: All submissions by any third-party in response to the RFP.

Demand No. 35: Any notes, email, or other COMMUNICATIONS reflecting YOUR analysis of whether the contract contemplated by the RFP would interfere with the PRIORITIZATION clause.

Demand No. 36: All other DOCUMENTS concerning the RFP.

Demand No. 38: All DOCUMENTS showing the date YOU first became aware of the LICENSE AGREEMENT. [The phrase “LICENSE AGREEMENT” was previously defined as “the License Agreement for Performance of Remediation and Grading Work, dated October 10, 2007, between the ICRA and DISPATCH”].

Demand No. 39: All DOCUMENTS concerning the LICENSE AGREEMENT.

Demand No. 40: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and a third-party regarding the LICENSE AGREEMENT, from the period 2007 to the present.

Demand No. 42: All COMMUNICATIONS from YOU to CTA asserting that the LICENSE AGREEMENT interfered with the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 43: All COMMUNICATIONS from YOU to the CITY asserting that the LICENSE AGREEMENT interfered with the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 45: All COMMUNICATIONS from YOU to CTA asserting that operations conducted pursuant to the LICENSE AGREEMENT interfered with the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 46: All COMMUNICATIONS from YOU to the CITY asserting that operations conducted pursuant to the LICENSE AGREEMENT interfered with the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 47: All DOCUMENTS that concern YOUR claim that “inert debris and other permissible fill” delivered to the MANNING PIT “should have gone to the Arrow Pit” as alleged in Paragraph 89 of the Second Amended Complaint.

Demand No. 48: All DOCUMENTS that concern YOUR claim that “inert debris and other permissible fill” delivered to the MANNING PIT was “diverted” from the ARROW PIT as alleged in Paragraph 90 of the Second Amended Complaint.

Demand No. 49: All DOCUMENTS that concern YOUR claim that “inert debris and other permissible fill” delivered to the MANNING PIT was “reasonably available” to YOU.

Demand No. 50: All DOCUMENTS that concern YOUR claim that fill activity at the MANNING PIT violated the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 51: All DOCUMENTS that concern any attempt YOU made to inform any PERSON of YOUR belief that the fill activity at the MANNING PIT violated the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 52: All DOCUMENTS that concern YOUR claim that DISPATCH intended to violate the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 53: All DOCUMENTS that concern YOUR claim that CTA intended to violate the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 54: All DOCUMENTS that concern YOUR claim that CTA knew its operations at the MANNING PIT interfered with the PRIORITIZATION CLAUSE.

Demand No. 55: All DOCUMENTS that concern any demand YOU made on any PERSON to cease any fill activity at the MANNING PIT from the period 2007 to 2014.

Demand No. 56: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and the CITY regarding the MANNING PIT.

Demand No. 57: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and IRWINDALE PARTNERS regarding the MANNING PIT.

Demand No. 60: All DOCUMENTS concerning the amount of damages YOU claim CTA caused, as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, including but not limited to all expert reports and the back-up for YOUR expert reports.

Demand No. 61: All DOCUMENTS that concern YOUR agreement to settle the claims YOU alleged against the CITY in this action.

Demand No. 62: All DOCUMENTS YOU sent or received from the CITY during YOUR negotiation of YOUR agreement to settle the claims YOU alleged against the CITY in this action.

Demand No. 63: All COMMUNICATIONS YOU sent or received from the CITY during negotiation of YOUR agreement to settle the claims YOU alleged against the CITY in this action.

It is plaintiff’s position that Demands Nos. 1-60 all request documents, including pleadings, discovery responses, document productions, and deposition transcripts, that are already in Dispatch Trucking, LLC’s (“Dispatch”) possession. Plaintiff’s responses to Nos. 1-7 consisted of objections only. With respect to No. 8, plaintiff identified each individual who was deposed in the underlying litigation and the dates of and court reporters for each of the aforesaid depositions. With respect to Nos. 9 and 60, plaintiff identified that expert reports were prepared by and produced by experts William Ackerman and Allen Suderman and that it was believed, due to defendant’s prior filings with the court, that defendant was already in possession of both experts’ reports. With respect to No. 10, plaintiff advised the contracts and attachments thereto were attached as exhibits to the Second Amended Complaint. With respect to Nos. 14, 15, 18, 35, 36 and 50, plaintiff objected, inter alia, on the basis that it was duplicative of Dispatch’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, dated 6/30/16, Nos. 9 and 13 and identified specific documents and Bates stamped documents that were previously produced to Dispatch in response to said requests.

With respect to Nos. 20 and 21, plaintiff advised that the demand was duplicative of Request for Production No. 10 in the City of Irwindale’s (“City”) deposition notice to plaintiff’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) dated 7/1/16 and of documents plaintiff produced in response thereto. With respect to Nos. 23-29, plaintiff advised that “from August 2014 to January 2015, [plaintiff] made all fill records of the Arrow Pit available for inspection and copying to all parties, including…Dispatch” and that the demand was also duplicative of Request for Production Nos. 1-13 in City’s deposition notice to plaintiff’s PMK dated 7/1/16 and documents plaintiff produced in response thereto. With respect to Nos. 30, 32, 33, 37, 41, 44, 58 and 59, plaintiff affirmatively represented that it “ha[d] no documents in its possession, custody or control responsive to [same].”

With respect to Nos. 31 and 34-36, plaintiff advised that “the RFP and related documents were previously produced by the City of Irwindale in the underlying litigation” and that, in fact, “CTA is already in possession of these documents and has repeatedly cited to, referenced, and attached them to filings before the Court.” With respect to Nos. 38 and 39, plaintiff advised that “documents related to the License Agreement have already been produced by multiple parties, including [plaintiff] and the City of Irwindale.” With respect to Nos. 40, 43, 46, 51 and 55, plaintiff provided the same response as to Nos. 38 and 39, but also identified the documents as including “letter from Joshua Levine to Fred Galante, letter from Thomas Vandenburg to David Aleshire, [and] email communications between Brent Anderson and Kwok Tam and Fred Galante.” With respect to Nos. 42 and 45, plaintiff objected, inter alia, on the basis that it “did not know of CTA’s involvement with the Manning Pit until after Dispatch filed for bankruptcy protection and as such could not have knowingly communicated with CTA prior to that time.”

With respect to Nos. 47-49, plaintiff objected, inter alia, on the basis that it was duplicative of Dispatch’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, dated 6/30/16, No. 8 and identified specific documents and Bates stamped documents that were previously produced to Dispatch in response to said requests. With respect to Nos. 52-54, plaintiff objected, inter alia, on the basis that it had previously produced documents responsive to same to Dispatch and identified specific responsive documents. With respect to No. 57, plaintiff objected, inter alia, on the basis that “documents related to the Manning Pit have already been produced by multiple parties, including USA Waste and the City of Irwindale.”

In its 12/13/17 cover letter accompanying its responses, plaintiff advised that “[w]e believe that CTA already is in possession of most or all of these materials…[n]otwithstanding the foregoing, [plaintiff] recognizes the possibility that there may be gaps in the case file materials in CTA’s possession” and expressed its willingness to “take reasonable steps to accommodate [defendant’s] efforts to obtain those items after reaching an agreement to cover the costs of collecting and copying them.” (Chen Decl., ¶ 2, Exhibit “A”). In his 2/9/18 meet and confer email, Chen noted that plaintiff agreed to provide, and did provide, defendant with a list or all pleadings and discovery in the case, and asked defendant to identify items it was actually missing. (Id., ¶ 10, Exhibit “I”). Defendant identified 32 documents it was purportedly missing and also asked for “trial exhibits from the 2016 trial against the City,” which plaintiff provided. (Id.).

The court has the power to “restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method…if…[t]he discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” CCP § 2019.030(a)(1). The court determines that, based on the above, Beehler’s factually devoid declaration, and its 10/10/17 and 3/21/18 rulings, plaintiff’s responses to Requests Nos. 1-60 are appropriate.

With respect to Nos. 61-63, no further responses are required. No good cause has been shown.

Accordingly, the motion is denied in full.

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1:

Plaintiff USA Waste of California, Inc. (“plaintiff”) moves for an order, per CCP §§ 2033.010, 2033.220, 2033.290, 2030.010 and 2030.300, compelling Defendant Commodity Trucking Acquisition, LLC (“defendant”) to provide further responses to its Requests for Admissions, Set No. One, Nos. 3-30, 32 and 35-42 and corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against defendant in the amount of $8,100.00.

“On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” CCP § 2033.290(a). “A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” CCP § 2033.290(b). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” CCP § 2033.290(c). “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2033.290(d).

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” CCP § 2030.300(a). “A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” CCP § 2030.300(b). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” CCP § 2030.300(b).

On 11/8/17, plaintiff served its Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatories, Sets No. One, on defendant. (Chen Decl., ¶ 6, Exhibits “A” and “B”). On 12/12/17, defendant served its responses thereto. (Id., ¶ 7, Exhibits “C” and “D”). The parties have met and conferred. (Id., ¶¶ 9-13, Exhibits “E”-“I”). On 1/29/18, plaintiff and defendant agreed to a mutual extension of time to move to compel responses to the other’s discovery to 2/15/18. (Id., ¶ 12, Exhibit “H”). During the parties’ meet and confer, defendant represented that it would provide supplemental responses to plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions Nos. 5, 6, and 8, and possibly to No. 7. (Id., ¶ 13, Exhibit “G”). Defendant agreed that it would grant an extension of time for plaintiff to move to compel to one week from the date supplemental responses were received. (Id., ¶ 13, Exhibit “I”). Plaintiff represents that, as of the date the motion was filed, defendant refused to commit to a deadline to serve supplemental responses, making the motion necessary. (Id.). The court determines that the motion was timely filed.

At the outset, the court notes that on 3/18/18, defendant provided supplemental responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30 and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as it relates to these admissions; as such, the motion is moot with respect to same. (Redcross Decl., ¶ 6, Exhibits “4” and “5”).

The remaining requests for admission (i.e., 4, 9-29, 32, and 35-42) read as follows:

Request for Admission No. 4: Admit that YOU did not inform DISPATCH’s customers that YOU were taking over OPERATIONS at the MANNING PIT prior to commencing YOUR OPERATION at the MANNING PIT. [The phrase “MANNING PIT” was previously defined as “the former mining put and now a vacant property owned by the CITY of approximately 37 acres, located south of Arrow Highway, between Allen Drive and Vincent Avenue in the City of Irwindale, California. The phrase “OPERATIONS” was previously defined as “ANY and ALL activities as described and called for in the LICENSE AGREEMENT CONCERNING the MANNING PIT”].

Request for Admission No. 9: Admit that YOU never informed the California Regional Water Quality Control Board that YOU took over OPERATIONS at the MANNING PIT from DISPATCH.

Request for Admission No. 10: Admit that YOU never informed KFM Geoscience that YOU took over OPERATIONS at the MANNING PIT from DISPATCH.

Request for Admission No. 11: Admit that YOU never informed the LC Engineering that YOU took over OPERATIONS at the MANNING PIT from DISPATCH.

Request for Admission No. 12: Admit that YOU never informed the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works that YOU took over OPERATIONS at the MANNING PIT from DISPATCH.

Request for Admission No. 13: Admit that YOU never informed the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health that YOU took over OPERATIONS at the MANNING PIT from DISPATCH.

Request for Admission No. 14: Admit that YOU never informed Tera Tech that YOU took over OPERATIONS at the MANNING PIT from DISPATCH.

Request for Admission No. 15: Admit that YOUR purchase of DISPATCH assets in 2011 included all tangible personal property of DISPATCH, including 55 desktop workstations.

Request for Admission No. 16: Admit that YOUR purchase of DISPATCH assets in 2011 included all tangible personal property of DISPATCH, including 35 laptops.

Request for Admission No. 17: Admit that YOUR purchase of DISPATCH assets in 2011 included DISPATCH’s intellectual property rights, title and interest in its billing software Dashboard.

Request for Admission No. 18: Admit that YOU have used the billing software Dashboard for YOUR OPERATIONS at the MANNING PIT from October 2011 to December 2014.

Request for Admission No. 19: Admit that YOUR purchase of DISPATCH assets in 2011 included DISPATCH’s intellectual property rights, title and interest in its dispatch system Preflight.

Request for Admission No. 20: Admit that YOUR purchase of DISPATCH assets in 2011 included all records and databases from DISPATCH’s use of the billing software Dashboard.

Request for Admission No. 21: Admit that YOUR purchase of DISPATCH assets in 2011 included all of DISPATCH’s BOOKS AND RECORDS.

Request for Admission No. 22: Admit that DISPATCH’s Contract Purchase Order with Atkinson Contractors, LP dated March 20, 2009 re I-10 Rehab Project was never assigned to YOU.

Request for Admission No. 23: Admit that DISPATCH’s Supplier Agreement with Sema Construction, Inc. dated March 1, 2011 re I-10 at Date Palm, Cathedral City was never assigned to YOU.

Request for Admission No. 24: Admit that DISPATCH’s Supplier Agreement with Sema Construction, Inc. dated November 3, 2010 re 710 Pavement Rehabilitation Project – Caltrans District 7 LA County was never assigned to YOU.

Request for Admission No. 25: Admit that DISPATCH’s Purchase Agreement with Skanska-Rados dated December 13, 2010 re I-215 Segments 1-2 was never assigned to YOU.

Request for Admission No. 26: Admit that DISPATCH’s Hauling Agreement with Structural Shotcrete Systems, Inc. dated April 5, 2010 re 16th Street Outpatient Services Building at 1223 16th Street, Santa Monica was never assigned to YOU.

Request for Admission No. 27: Admit that DISPATCH’s Purchase Order with C.C. Myers, Inc. dated June 7, 2011 re Sand Canyon Ave & I-5 was never assigned to YOU.

Request for Admission No. 28: Admit that DISPATCH’s memorandum of understanding for Soil Excavation Services with Inland Empire Utilities Agency dated April 19, 2011 was never assigned to YOU.

Request for Admission No. 29: Admit that DISPATCH’s “Deal Points” agreement with R&M Hernandez Trucking was never assigned to YOU.

Request for Admission No. 32: Admit that YOUR rights and obligations under the LICENSE AGREEMENT are identical to the rights and obligations held by DISPATCH between October 2007 to September 2011.

Request for Admission No. 35: Admit that YOU paid, at least in part, DISPATCH’s legal fees relating to DISPATCH’s defense of the 2013 DISPATCH ACTION. [The phrase “2013 DISPATCH ACTION” was previously defined as “the litigation that took place between the time original complaint was filed on August 26, 2013, and the time DISPATCH filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on August 30, 2016, in the case entitled USA Waste of California, Inc. v. City of Irwindale, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. KC066276”].

Request for Admission No. 36: Admit that YOU paid, at least in part, DISPATCH’s expert fees relating to DISPATCH’s defense of the 2013 DISPATCH ACTION.

Request for Admission No. 37: Admit that YOU paid, at least in part, DISPATCH’s litigation costs relating to DISPATCH’s defense of the 2013 DISPATCH ACTION.

Request for Admission No. 38: Admit that YOU provided information to DISPATCH’s counsel, J. Craig Johnson relating to DISPATCH’s defense of the 2013 DISPATCH ACTION.

Request for Admission No. 39: Admit that YOU provided information to DISPATCH’s EXPERT CONSULTANTS relating to DISPATCH’s defense of the 2013 DISPATCH ACTION. [The phrase “EXPERT CONSULTANTS” was previously defined as to “mean and refer to the following individuals: Allen Suderman, CPA; Thomas D. Hess, II; Peter Skopek, Ph.D., P.E., G.E.; James M. Evenson, P.G., C.H.G.; Brett MacDonald; and William Tam”].

Request for Admission No. 40: Admit that have corresponded with DISPATCH’s counsel, J. Craig Johnson, relating to DISPATCH’s defense of the 2013 DISPATCH ACTION.

Request for Admission No. 41: Admit that have corresponded with DISPATCH’s EXPERT CONSULTANTS relating to DISPATCH’s defense of the 2013 DISPATCH ACTION.

Request for Admission No. 42: Admit that YOU knew of DISPATCH’s intent to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy prior to DISPATCH filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on or about August 31, 2016.

The aforesaid requests for admission concern matters directly related to plaintiff’s contentions and defendant’s defenses. Plaintiff has alleged that “[u]pon information and belief, Dispatch and its principals have engaged in a carefully coordinated effort to hide any and all information relating to CTA’s involvement in the Manning Pit from USA Waste and the court from the time that this litigation was first filed…Dispatch denied in sworn discovery responses in this action that any entity other than Dispatch hauled fill material to the Manning Pit and repeatedly concealed the fact that CTA was operating the Manning Pit at any time. Upon information and belief, Dispatch, CTA, their principals and their attorneys set about to conceal the truth from the court and from USA Waste…[u]pon information and belief, CTA affirmatively misrepresented their control of the Manning Pit and Dispatch as a tactical litigation shell to impose additional hurdles on USA Waste in realizing on its claims once liquidated as a judgment of this court.” (SAC, ¶ 66). Plaintiff has also alleged that Dispatch and plaintiff have a unity of interest such that defendant is Dispatch’s alter ego. Plaintiff alleges that “CTA used the property of Dispatch and dominated and controlled Dispatch’s activities such that they ceased functioning as separate entities.” (Id., ¶ 77). Defendant’s fifth affirmative defense (i.e., Bona Fide UCC Article 9 Sale) contends that “CTA is a separate legal entity from Dispatch Transportation, LLC.” (Answer, ¶ 5).

The information sought in the requests for admission pertain to factors establishing alter ego. The motion, then, is granted in full. Further verified responses are ordered to be served within 20 days. Sanctions are awarded, but reduced to $2,920.00 [5 hours preparing motion at $325.00/hour, 1 hour preparing reply at $325.00/hour, 2 hours attending hearing at $425.00/hour, $120.00 filing fee].