Case Number: BC464772    Hearing Date: April 25, 2014    Dept: 34

Moving Party: Plaintiff Water Replenishment District (“WRD”)

Resp. Party: Defendant City of Lynwood (“Lynwood”)

WRD’s motion to compel is GRANTED in PART.

To the extent that it has not already done so, Lynwood must provide verifications for its supplemental responses, served on 2/14/14, to WRD’s special interrogatories, demands for inspection, and form interrogatories, and for its original responses to WRD’s requests for admissions.

Lynwood is ordered to produce the 40 sample bills in response to RFP Nos. 16-20, as indicated in WRD’s Reply. (See Reply, p. 3:8-16.)

The Court declines to impose sanctions because WRD’s sanctions request is improper. Further, these issues could have been resolved in an informal discovery conference, thus saving all parties and the court the time and expense of these formal motions.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

WRD failed to separate its voluminous exhibits with hard tabs, in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f). This needlessly made it more difficult for the Court to consider the motion.

There is no showing that the parties met and conferred regarding the supplemental responses filed by Lynwood on 2/14/14. Normally, the court would deny a motion to compel if the parties had not met and conferred prior to bringing the motion. However, in the interest of judicial economy, the court will rule on the adequacy of the supplemental responses as part of this motion.

Lastly, the court is concerned that the parties chose not to make use of the court’s informal discovery conference procedures. BThis motion to compel (which actually consists of four motions to compel) required at least $7000 of attorneys time — not to mention the time of the court – to brief and argue. (According to attorney Kargman, counsel for WRD spent over 14 hours researching and briefing the motion itself. See Kargman Declaration, ¶ 17.) It is the court’s experience that these types of issues can be resolved in under a half hour in an informal discovery conference. The court would hope that, should there be any further discovery disputes, the parties would both agree to resolve them informally.

BACKGROUND:

In the lead related case to this action, the City of Cerritos, City of Downey, and City of Signal Hill filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint against WRD. (See LASC Case No. BS 128136.) The cities brought the action “to prevent Respondent Water Replenishment District of Southern California . . . from continuing to illegally tax the Cities in violation of the California Constitution and WRD’s own enabling statutes, and to recover funds paid pursuant to WRD’s illegal tax.” (FAC ¶ 1 [Case No. BS 128136].) The cities believe that WRD is disregarding Articles XIII C and D to the California Constitution by imposing excessive fees on cities. (Id., ¶ 3.)

The Honorable James Chalfant, presiding in the BS128136 case, entered an order on April 25, 2011, invalidating WRD’s Replenishment Assessments (“RAs”) from the years of 2006 until 2010, on the grounds that they violated Article XIII D of the California Constitution. (See Order of April 25, 2011, LASC Case No. BS 128136.) This Order stated that WRD must comply with Article XIII D before adopting any new RA. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff WRD commenced the instant action on July 5, 2011 against all persons interested in the matter of the validity of Water Replenishment District of Southern California Resolution No. 11-901 for determination of validity of Resolution No. 11-901. WRD contends that “on May 6, 2011, WRD’s Board of Directors considered and adopted WRD Resolution No. 11-901, levying a Replenishment Assessment on the production of groundwater from groundwater supplies within WRD during the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2012.” (Compl., ¶ 9 [Case No. BC464772].) WRD further alleges that “Resolution No. 11-901 set the Replenishment Assessment for the 2011-12 water year at $244 per acre-foot of water produced” and that the funds generated by this Assessment “will be used for WRD operating expenses, purchasing imported and recycled water to replenish the Central and West Coast Groundwater Basins . . ., financial reserve needs, purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment and materials, and for capital projects.” (Ibid.)

On 3/12/13, WRD dismissed its complaint without prejudice.

The Cities submitted cross-complaints on 10/25/11 for declaratory relief and damages. On 9/6/13, the Cities filed first amended cross-complaints (“FACC”). Like the cities in BS128136, the Cities here allege that WRD disregarded Articles XIII C and D to the California Constitution by imposing excessive fees. The Cities seek declaratory relief and recovery of “all payments levied and collected from it by WRD in violation of the constitutional mandates found at Article XIII D.”

ANALYSIS:

WRD seeks to compel further responses to special interrogatory numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30-40, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56-61. WRD seeks further responses to form interrogatory numbers 1.1, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.6, and 17.1. WRD seeks further responses and responsive documents for request for production numbers 1-53.

Lynwood has not submitted a substantive response to the motion. Instead, Lynwood shows that it served supplemental responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production on 2/14/14. (See Quilizapa Decl., ¶¶ 12-15, Exhs. F-J.) Because these supplemental responses were served after the instant motion was filed, WRD’s motion does not address whether these responses are sufficient. In the reply, WRD argues that supplemental responses to request for production numbers 16-20 remain deficient. In its supplemental response Lynwood agreed to produce a sample, redacted bill. WRD indicates that such a bill was never produced. WRD further argues that, based on Lynwood’s Interrogatory responses, Lynwood charged different fees in different years. The court finds that WRD’s request that “Lynwood should be compelled to produce a sample bill for each separate category of water customer for each of the five fiscal years at issue,” is reasonable. (See Reply, p. 3:14-15.)

WRD also argues that Lynwood has not provided original verifications of the responses to the special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admissions. Lynwood’s counsel declares that verifications for the original responses were sent to WRD’s counsel via mail on 11/25/13. (Quilizapa Decl., ¶ 8.) Lynwood fails to provide any documentary evidence to support this statement (such as proofs of service). More importantly, there is no showing that the supplemental responses served on 2/14/14 contained verifications. (See id., Exhs. H-J.) Accordingly, to the extent that it has not already done so, Lynwood must provide verifications for the supplemental responses.

Sanctions

A request for sanctions “shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) The notice of motion “shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

WRD’s sanctions request is improper. The notice to this motion fails to identify the person(s) against whom sanctions are sought and does not specify the type or amount of sanctions sought. Instead, WRD merely states that it “requests sanctions.” The memorandum and declaration likewise fail to provide identify the person(s) against whom sanctions are sought. It is unclear if sanctions are sought against Lynwood, its counsel of record, or both.

Further, given that this motion to compel could have been resolved more efficiently to an informal discovery conference, the court would be disinclined to impose sanctions even were the request proper.

Lynwood to supplement its responses as indicated above within 20 days.