OPV Coalition et al vs Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency et al

Case Number

VENCI00555357

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/14/2025 - 15:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion Re Initial Disclosures

Tentative Ruling

On calendar for the case management conference of February 14, 2025, are:

(1)          Joint Motion re Initial Disclosures

On January 17, 2025, shortly before the CMC of that day, plaintiffs filed a notice of joint motion re initial disclosures. The motion requests an order detailing information required in the initial disclosures required by Code of Civil Procedure section 842, subdivision (a). The motion is made on behalf of plaintiffs and various defendants.

No party has filed opposition to this motion. Defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) filed a statement to reiterate that groundwater well information provided by FCGMA that is embedded in the initial disclosure workbooks consists of data self-reported to FCGMA by groundwater extractors and that FCGMA did not independently generate this extraction information. FCGMA’s qualification as to the nature of such information is noted.

The court will grant the motion and enter the proposed order.

(2)          Joint Request to Enter Amended Protective Order

On February 7, 2025, in connection with a recommendation of the Special Master’s Report No. 2 (“Report No. 2,” discussed below), plaintiffs and defendant and intervenor United Water Conservation District (UWCD) filed a joint request to enter an Amended Protective Order. The amendments to the protective order relate to the disclosure and use of UWCD Model Files. The Amended Protective order has been circulated among the parties and no opposition has been filed.

UWCD’s objection to Report No. 2 includes a request that if the court overrules UWCD’s objections the court should in any event enter the Amended Protective Order.

The court will grant the joint request and enter the Amended Protective Order.

(3)          Special Master’s Report No. 2

Report No. 2 addresses the motion of plaintiffs, served on December 20, 2024, for an order “to produce all input and output files for United’s Coastal Plain Model numerical groundwater flow model for the Oxnard and Pleasant Valley Basins in its various iterations (the ‘Model Files’) and the factual data that supports the inputs to, and calibration of, the models and accompanying reports and presentations (the ‘Model Data’), including subsidiary modeling United has performed that informs the Coastal Plain Model.” (Report 2, at pp. 1-2, 3.) (The court notes that the motion addressed by Report No. 2, the proposed order on the motion, the UWCD opposition, and the reply is attached as exhibits A through D to the declaration of Ellison Folk filed in support of FCGMA’s objection to Report No. 2. While this is sufficient for the purposes of addressing Report No. 2 and its objections, in the future to maintain a clear and complete record, such documents should be filed by the moving or prevailing party as attachments to a notice or declaration clearly identifying the report to which the documents pertain.) Report No. 2 recommends that the court grant the motion and issue the order requested in connection with the Amended Protective Order (discussed above).

Two parties have filed objections to entry of the recommendation of Report No. 2 to grant the motion to compel production of information. UWCD objects (a) that the plaintiffs’ motion was unauthorized and premature, (b) that Report No. 2 does not provide UWCD sufficient time to comply, and (c) that Report No. 2 is too broad. FCGMA did not file opposition with Special Master Beckloff, but objects (d) that the Report does not provide a basis for requiring UWCD to produce all materials listed in the proposed order, (e) that the GSP Files are not relevant to Phase 1 issues, and (f) that neither UWCD nor FCGMA waived its objections to disclosure of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Files as premature expert discovery. FCGMA requests that the recommendations of Report No. 2 be narrowed to exclude certain items or alternatively to make clear that the GSP Files may not be used in Phase 1 to challenge the substantive validity of the GSPs or their periodic evaluations.

The court has reviewed Report No. 2, the objections, and all supporting papers. Special Master Beckloff has addressed the issues raised by the objections, with one exception, in Report No. 2. The court agrees with the analysis and conclusions of Special Master Beckloff, subject to the exception discussed below.

UWCD argues that the procedures followed allow the plaintiffs to proceed outside the rules followed by the other parties and encourages gamesmanship. This argument warrants some additional comment. The task assigned by this court to Special Master Beckloff is to create a discovery plan, and in the first instance to implement and administer such plan consistent with the sequencing of trial ordered by the court. In that context, the styling of the motion as a “motion to compel” is perhaps confusing since the effect of the motion is not to compel responses or further responses to propounded discovery but instead the effect is to order discovery according to a discovery plan. The analysis and conclusions of Special Master Beckloff are designed to follow a discovery plan to permit the efficient exchange of discovery in this complex case. The court has complete faith that Special Master Beckloff will take all appropriate steps to implement this plan in an efficient manner consistent with all parties’ procedural rights while reigning in any attempts at gamesmanship.

Special Master Beckloff has addressed the issue of breadth of the order and this court agrees for the reasons there stated. The court notes that these are discovery issues for the exchange of information. The court makes no evidentiary rulings at this time and will address evidentiary issues, including the scope of permissible evidence for Phase 1 trial, at the appropriate time in relation to that trial.

The one exception is the compliance date. Report No. 2 does not address the compliance date of February 21, 2025, as it relates to the deadline for objection, February 10, and this hearing of February 14. UWCD presents the declaration of Dr. Jason Sun, the Supervisory Water Resources Engineer for UWCD, who states that the volume of data to be produced under the order recommended by Report No. 2 cannot be gathered by February 21. Dr. Sun requests an additional two weeks to produce these records. (Sun decl., ¶¶ 1-4.) While February 21 is a reasonable compliance date when measured from the February 3 date of Report No. 2, UWCD objected to the recommendations of Report No. 2. When a party objects, the objecting party is put in a bind as to compliance while awaiting a ruling on the objections.

It is unclear from Report No. 2 whether the uncertainty based upon not-yet-ruled-upon objections has been considered by the Special Master. To address this problem, the court will make a unique exception in this instance and grant the request to extend the compliance deadline to March 7, 2025. In the future, this court will assume that any deadline date given by Special Master Beckloff includes consideration of the time for this court to rule on objections made to the recommendations of the Special Master. Any further delay in compliance sought by a party on account of its anticipated objections will need to be made to the Special Master in the first instance.

With this exception, the court will overrule the objections and adopt the recommendations set forth in Report No. 2 as the order of this court. Plaintiffs will be required to lodge a revised proposed order reflecting this disposition.

(4)          Other Matters

CMC statements were filed (a) by FCGMA, joined with certain other parties, and (b) by plaintiffs updating the court on developments, including particularly the court’s concern about including settlement/ mediation proceedings within the timeframe for discovery and trial of Phase 1. The parties report that mediation proceedings are to have been the subject of further discussion with Special Master Beckloff. The court appreciates further updates at the hearing, but does not expect or intend to make any orders until receiving a recommendation from the Special Master as to matters now pending before the Special Master.

The next CMC is now scheduled for March 14, 2025. If additional later CMCs are to be set now, counsel should be prepared to discuss those dates at the hearing.