Case Number: KC066049 Hearing Date: May 13, 2014 Dept: J

Re: Irwindale Partners, L.P., etc. v. USA Waste of California, Inc., etc., et al. (KC066049 R/T KC066276)

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (X2)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Irwindale Partners, L.P.

Respondents: (1) Defendant USA Waste of California, Inc.; (2) Defendant Waste Management, Inc.

POS: Moving, Opposing, and Replies OK

In this action for breach of a landfill lease agreement, Plaintiff Irwindale Partners, L.P. alleges that Defendants’ operation of a landfill was not performed in compliance with the lease, as well as applicable laws and regulations. The Complaint, filed on 5/24/13, asserts causes of action for:

1. Breach of Contract
2. Nuisance
3. Trespass
4. Waste
5. Fraud
6. Negligent Misrepresentation
7. Nuisance

On 10/15/13, this case was deemed related to case number KC066276, USA Waste of California, Inc. v. City of Irwindale.

A Motion to Quash Service of Summons by Defendant Waste Management, Inc., and the Case Managment Conference, are currently scheduled for 6/26/14.

Waste Management, Inc. has a pending Motion to Quash Service of Summons, contending that it is an nonresident corporation that does not have sufficient contacts with California to justify the exercise of either general or specific personal jurisdiction by this court. The court continued the hearing of that motion in order to permit the parties to begin discovery on issues including the challenge to personal jurisdiction raise by Waste Management, Inc.

On 12/13/13, Irwindale Partners served Defendants Waste Management, Inc. (“Waste Management”) and USA Waste of California, Inc. (“USA Waste”) with requests for production of 26 categories of documents seeking discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction. Defendants objected to each category on numerous grounds: relevance, vague and ambiguous, overbreadth, burdensome, privilege, confidentiality and privacy. Meet and confer letters were exchanged on 3/04/14 and 3/07/14, and these motions followed. Each of the objections will be addressed as to all categories in each motion, which will be addressed jointly.

Reasonable Inquiry, and Specific Reasons for Inability to Comply:

CCP §2031.230 requires that a response to an inspection demand stating an inability to comply must affirmatively state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the document demanded, and the specific reason why the party is unable to comply. Here, Defendants state a diligent search was made, but nothing further. Moreover, Defendants state only that they have “been unable to locate any documents response to this request,” and do not identify any persons or organization that is known or believed to be in possession of the documents. A further response is required.

Relevance:

The discovery seeks relevant documents, since relevance is a much broader concept at the discovery stage than the issues presented in the pleadings. (Norton v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th, 1750, 1760). Information is relevant to the subject matter if its discovery will tend to promote settlement or assist the party in preparing for trial. (Id). These document categories are relevant, and a further response is required.

Burdensome:

“[S]ome burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.” (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 418.) “Objecting parties must file evidence detailing the amount of work involved, in order to support objections based upon burden and oppression.” (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2013) ¶8:1097.) Defendants have not provided such evidence. This objection is overruled and a further response is required.

Vague and Ambiguous:

A responding party to discovery may not “deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of providing an evasive answer.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) These objections are appropriate only if a request is totally unintelligible. Even where a request “is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Ibid.). The objection “vague, ambiguous” is a “nuisance objection…exposing the responding party to sanctions.” (Standon Co, Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903.) In this instance, the requests are not unintelligible. This objection is overruled and a further response is required.

Overbreadth:

In order to justify an objection on the basis that a request is overbroad, the question is whether the request is sufficiently restricted to a specific subject or purpose. (West Pico Furniture co. v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 416-417.) Here, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery on all issues related to this litigation as to USA Waste, not just the “jurisdictional issues,” which issue is limited to Waste Management. The overbreadth objection is overruled and a further response is required.

Attorney-Client Privilege:

The attorney-client privilege is contained in Evidence Code § 950 et seq., and in general allows the client “to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer . . . .” Here, it is not apparent that the requests ask for the disclosure of any of Defendants’ communications of a confidential, privileged nature. The objecting party has the burden to produce evidence of the preliminary facts establishing that a privilege exists. (HLC Properties, Limited v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 54, 59; Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2013) ¶8:192.) In this instance, there is no evidence offered in support of the opposition that supports this privilege. Thus, the objection is overruled and a further response is required.

Attorney Work-Product Privilege:

The attorney work product doctrine is codified in § 2018 of the Code of Civil Procedure. “The work product rule in California creates for the attorney a qualified privilege against discovery of general work product and an absolute privilege against disclosure of writings containing the attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories.” (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Sup.Ct., 199 Cal. App. 3d 1240, 1250.) In this case, it is not apparent that the requests ask for the disclosure of any of counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories. Further, no evidence has been presented in support of this privilege. Thus, the objection is overruled and a further response is required.

Privacy:

“[I]ndividuals have a legally recognized privacy interest in their personal financial information.” (International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 319, 330.) In this instance, the Defendants are business entities, and the same privacy rights do not extend to them. Thus, the objection is overruled and a further response is required.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the motions are granted. Defendants USA Waste of Californa, Inc. and Waste Management, Inc. are ordered to provide further responses within 20 days.

Sanctions:

Under CCP § 2031.310(h), “a party that unsuccessfully opposes a motion” may be sanctioned. In this case, Plaintiff requests “sanctions of at least $2,000” on each of the two Motions. The court considers the nature of the issues and type of motion, and defendants USA Waste of California, Inc. and Waste Management, Inc. and their counsel of record are jointly ordered to pay to counsel for Irwindale Partners, L.P. discovery sanctions in the total amount of $3,120.00 (12 @ $250 hr. + $120) within 20 days.