Superior Court of The State of California County of Santa Clara
Superior Court of The State of California County of Santa Clara
Superior Court of The State of California County of Santa Clara
MATTHEW DITZHAZY
CITY ATTORNEY
2 CITY OF PALMDALE
3 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
A Professional Corporation
4 JAMES L. MARKMAN (43536)
jmarkman rwglaw.com
5 STEVEN R. ORR (136615)
sorr rw law.corn
6 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3101
7 Telephone: 213.626.8484
Facsimile: 213.626.0078
8
Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and
9 Cross-Defendant
CITY OF PALMDALE
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ATT ORNEYS AT LAW - APROFE SSIONAL COR PORAT ION
12 information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine and
13 official information privilege.
14
15 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
17 Do YOU contend that YOU have the right to recapture or use the return flows
18 resulting from State Water Project water AVEK imports into the area of adjudication?
19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.!:
20 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
21 Statement and General Objections as though expressly set forth herein.
22 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
23 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
24 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."
25 The term "imports" is not defined and is vague and ambiguous as used in this
26 interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an assumption, that AVEK
27 imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory compound and ambiguous.
28 ///
-2-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1.doc
1 Subject to the foregoing, the City does not presently purchase State Water Project
2 water from AVEK. As part of the Amargosa Creek Recharge Project, the City expects to
3 purchase such water, and will claim the right to recapture or use return flows therefrom.
4
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
6 Set forth all facts which support YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 1
7 above.
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
9 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
10 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
z 11 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
o
E_D 12 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, the right of
1.1.1 8
13 privacy or any other applicable privilege.
o 14 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
utt).-
15 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
v-)
(z) 16 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."
<
=
L.) 17 The term "imports" is not defined and is vague and ambiguous as used in this
E2
Pitt 18 interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an assumption, that AVEK
2rar,
19 imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory compound and ambiguous.
20 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
21 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
22 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
23 Subject to the foregoing, the City does not presently purchase State Water Project
24 water from AVEK. As part of the Amargosa Creek Recharge Project, the City expects to
25 purchase such water, and will claim the right to recapture or use return flows therefrom.
26
27 ///
28 ///
-3-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356vI doc
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
2 Describe in detail all WRITINGS which support YOUR response to Special
3 Interrogatory No. 1 above.
4 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
5 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
6 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
7 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
8 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, the right of
9 privacy or any other applicable privilege.
10 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
11 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFE SSIONAL CORP ORATI ON
16 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
17 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
18 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."
19 The terms "import" and "presently in the groundwater" is not defined and is vague
20 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
21 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
22 compound and ambiguous. The phrase "amount of return flows presently in the
23 groundwater" assumes the origin of each molecule of water can be identified.
24 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
25 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
26 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
27 Subject to the foregoing. The City does not purchase water from AVEK.
28 ///
-5-
Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1.doc
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
2 Set forth all facts supporting your response to Special Interrogatory No. 5 above.
3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
4 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
5 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
6 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
7 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege.
8 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
9 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
10 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . . ."
11 The terms "import" and "presently in the groundwater" is not defined and is vague
12 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
13 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
14 compound and ambiguous. The phrase "amount of return flows presently in the
15 groundwater" assumes the origin of each molecule of water can be identified.
16 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
17 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
18 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
19 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable. The City does not purchase water from
20 AVEK.
21
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
23 Describe in detail all WRITINGS supporting your response to Special Interrogatory
24 No. 5 above.
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
26 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
27 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
28 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
-6-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1 doc
1 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege.
2 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
3 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
4 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."
5 The terms "import" and "presently in the groundwater" is not defined and is vague
6 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
7 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
8 compound and ambiguous. The phrase "amount of return flows presently in the
9 groundwater" assumes the origin of each molecule of water can be identified.
10 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
11 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
ATTORNEYSATLAW - A PRO FESSI ONALCORPORATION
12 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
13 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
14 compound and ambiguous.
15 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
16 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
17 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
18 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable.
19
20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
21 Describe in detail all WRITINGS supporting YOUR response to Special
22 Interrogatory No. 8 above.
23 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
24 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
25 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
26 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
27 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege.
28 ///
-8-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1 .doe
1 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
2 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
3 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . . ."
4 The terms "import" and "presently in the groundwater" is not defined and is vague
5 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
6 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
7 compound and ambiguous.
8 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
9 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
10 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
11 Subject to the foregoing, this interrogatory is not applicable. Responding Party does
ATTORN EYSATL AW - APROFESSI ONAL CORPOR ATION
-9-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1.doc
1 relevant admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party
2 responds as follows: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party did
3 not locate records reflecting communications between AVEK and itself regarding the right
4 to use return flows from the State Water Project.
5
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
7 Describe in detail all WRITINGS which support YOUR response to Special
8 Interrogatory No. 11.
9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
10 Objections: vague and ambiguous as to "imports" and "any communication."
11 Irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - APROFESSI ONAL CORPORATION
-1 0 -
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234 \ 1646356v1.doc
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
2 Set forth all facts supporting YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 14.
3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
4 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
5 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
6 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
7 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
8 further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "attempted to recapture or use return
9 flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as used
10 in this interrogatory. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory because it
11 necessitates the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary from documents in
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PR OFE SSIONAL CORPO RATIO N
12 Responding Party's possession and such preparation would be similarly burdensome and/or
13 expensive to both the propounding and responding parties. (C.C.P. § 2030.230.)
14 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable. Responding Party does not purchase AVEK
15 water.
16
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
18 Describe in detail all WRITINGS which support YOUR response to Special
19 Interrogatory No. 14.
20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
21 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
22 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
23 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
24 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
25 further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "attempted to recapture or use return
26 flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as used
27 in this interrogatory. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory because it
28 necessitates the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary from documents in
-11-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234 \ 1646356v1.doc
1 Responding Party's possession and such preparation would be similarly burdensome and/or
2 expensive to both the propounding and responding parties. (C.C.P. section 2030.230.)
3 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable. Responding Party does not purchase AVEK
4 water.
5
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
7 If YOUR answer to Special Interrogatory No. 14 is anything other than "yes,"
8 explain in detail the reason(s) why YOU have not attempted to recapture or use return flows
9 resulting from State Water Project water AVEK has imported into the area of adjudication.
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
11 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
ATTO RNEY SAT LAW - APROFESSIO NAL CORPORATION
12 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
13 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
14 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
15 further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "attempted to recapture or use return
16 flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as
17 incorporated in this interrogatory. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it
18 calls for the disclosure of information protected by the deliberative process privilege.
ar
19 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable. Responding Party does not purchase AVEK
20 water.
21
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
23 In any non-privileged WRITINGS YOU have prepared from 1974 to present
24 (excluding pleadings filed in this Action), have YOU stated that return flows from State
25 Water Project water AVEK imports into the area of adjudication is a source of water
26 available to YOU?
27 ///
28 ///
-12-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1 doc
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
2 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
3 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
4 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
5 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
6 further objects to this interrogatory because the term "imports" is not defined and is vague
7 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory.
8 Subject to the foregoing, Responding Party is not aware of any responsive
9 documents.
10
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
ATTORN EYS AT L AW - A PROFES SIONALCORPORATI ON
-13-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1.doc
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
2 If YOUR answer to Special Interrogatory No. 18 is anything other than an
3 unqualified "yes," then explain in detail why WRITINGS prepared by YOU have never
4 stated that return flows from State Project Water AVEK imports into the area of
5 adjudication is a source of water available to YOU.
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
7 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
8 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
9 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
10 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.010(b).
11 Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory because the term "imports" is not
ATTORN EYSAT LAIN - A PR OFESSI O NALCOR PORAT ION
12 defined and is vague and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. Responding Party also
13 objects to this interrogatory as it calls for the disclosure of information protected by the
14 deliberative process privilege.
15 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable.
16
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
18 As to each admission request served concurrently herewith to which YOU do not
19 provide an unqualified admission, separately set forth all facts upon which YOUR denial of
20 the admission request is based.
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
22 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
23 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to the
24 interrogatory as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.060(0,
25 which states "No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound,
26 conjunctive, or disjunctive question." Responding Party further objects this interrogatory
27 as it has already been posed as a form interrogatory by the Propounding Party. Continuous
28 discovery into the same matter constitutes oppression, and Responding Party objects on that
-14-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1 doc
1 basis. (Professional Career Colleges v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 490, 493-
2 94.)
3 Subject to the foregoing, Responding Party responds by incorporating its Responses
4 to Propounding Party's Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.
5
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
7 As to each admission request served concurrently herewith to which YOU do not
8 provide an unqualified admission, identify in detail all WRITINGS which support YOUR
9 denial of the admission request.
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
11 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
WATSONIGER SH ON
ATTO RNEYSATLAW - APRO FE SS IONALCORPORATI ON
12 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to the
13 interrogatory as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.060(f),
14 which states "No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound,
15 conjunctive, or disjunctive question." Responding Party further objects this interrogatory
16 as it has already been posed as a form interrogatory by the Propounding Party. Continuous
17 discovery into the same matter constitutes oppression, and Responding Party objects on that
18 basis. (Professional Career Colleges v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 490, 493-
19 94.)
20 Subject to the foregoing, Responding Party responds by incorporating its Responses
21 to Propounding Party's Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.
22
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
24 Have YOU constructed or developed any wells, a purpose of which was to recapture
25 return flows from State Water Project water AVEK imports into the area of adjudication?
26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
27 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
28 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
-15-
Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234 \1646356v1.doc
1 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
2 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
3 further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "constructed or developed", "to
4 recapture return flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague, ambiguous and
5 unintelligible as used in this interrogatory. Responding Party also objects to this
6 interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to
7 the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence.
8 Subject to the foregoing, no.
9
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
11 Set forth all facts supporting YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 23.
WATSONI GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFE SSIONALCORPORATION
23
24
25
26
27
28
P6399-1234\1080982v1.doc