Sable Offshore Corp et al vs California Coastal Commission

Case Number

25CV00974

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 08/27/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Sable’s Motions to Compel Discovery

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs [“Sable”] by Jeffrey Dintzer, Trevor Large

Defendants [“Commission”] by Wyatt Sloan-Tribe, Thomas Kinzinger, John Natalizio

RULING

Sable’s motions to compel are DENIED.

Analysis

This is a hearing on Sable’s discovery motions set by ex parte application advancing the hearing on discovery matters previously set for hearing on September 10 (where the Court’s computer [Odyssey] continues to have these motions calendared).

On May 16, 2025, Commission filed a motion to bifurcate and separately try the writ of mandate claims of Sable. The Commission concurrently filed a motion for protective order to limit discovery to the administrative record until after disposition of the bifurcated writ claims.

On June 26, 2025, Sable filed an ex parte application to specially set its not-then-filed motions to compel. On June 27, the Court continued the hearing on the ex parte application to July 28.

On July 1, 2025, Sable filed three motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, to requests for production of documents, and to requests for admissions. These motions were initially set for hearing on September 10.

On July 10, 2025, Sable filed opposition to the Commission’s motion to bifurcate and motion for protective order.

On July 16, 2025, the Commission lodged the administrative record with the Court.

On July 23, 2025, the Court granted the Commission’s motion to bifurcate and denied the Commission’s motion for a protective order.

On July 28, 2025, the Court granted Sable’s ex parte application and set the discovery motions for this hearing of August 27.

On August 14, 2025, the Commission filed its oppositions to each of the motions to compel. The Commission argues that writ proceeding, which is to proceed first, will be based entirely upon the administrative record and discovery is improper. Commission argues that because non-writ claims are derivative of the writ claims, the discovery sought by Sable is similarly improper.

On August 20, 2025, Sable filed an omnibus reply to the discovery motions. Sable argues that these issues were decided when the Court denied the Commission’s protective order on the same grounds.

Indeed, Sable is correct that the Court denied the Commission’s motion for a protective order on the same grounds. At the time the Court denied the protective order, it was envisioned that the Court should allow such discovery.

But the Court now recognizes and rules that the Commission is and was correct. The writ proceedings are to be based solely on the administrative record and that any discovery as to those claims would be improper.

Therefore, the motions to compel should be denied; Sable’s discovery is not allowed; the Commission’s arguments are correct.