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

Case Number

VENCI00555357

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/16/2025 - 15:00

Nature of Proceedings

Case Management Conference

Tentative Ruling

For the case management conference of May 16, 2025, case management reports were received from plaintiffs (both an initial statement and a supplemental statement) and from the “Defense Group,” which includes the Cities of Oxnard, Camarillo, and San Buenaventura, United Water Conservation District, Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, and certain other defendants. No other reports have been filed.

1.            On May 5, 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice of the Special Master’s Report No. 3 re Allocation of Special Master’s Fees. On May 7, a supplement to this notice was filed attaching a copy of the reporter’s transcript from the April 25 proceedings before Special Master Beckloff. As the documents filed with the Special Master and the transcripts demonstrate, determining an equitable allocation of special master fees is a nuanced matter in which the parties have varied positions. In their case management statement, plaintiffs agree with and request adoption of the recommendations of Report No. 3. In their case management statement, the Defense Group does not oppose adoption of the recommendations of Report No. 3, but notes that there may be some uncertainty in allocating fees within subgroups.

The court will approve and adopt the recommendations of the Special Master’s Report No. 3 without qualification but with the following comments:

As the court previously stated, a serious difficulty in allocating the special master’s fees is that there is no single “right” answer; what is equitable to one party in one sense may seem inequitable to another. The Special Master’s recommendation thoughtfully achieves an appropriate balance of competing interests. One issue that was raised and discussed in the course of these proceedings is the relative value to participants of proceedings before the Special Master. The court emphatically agrees with the Special Master that the proceedings before the Special Master benefit all parties to this litigation. The special master proceedings are invaluable in moving this case forward expeditiously, and the detailed analysis of the Special Master is enormously helpful in resolving any remaining disputes.

In the event that the parties are unable to agree after the meet and confer process on precise allocations within subgroups, such parties may seek relief from the Special Master in the first instance and then from the court. It should always be kept in mind that the cost of disputing small differences may easily exceed the amount to be saved by winning the dispute.

2.            Settlement Issues

The parties raise the issue about identifying disputed issues for Phase 1 and exploring ways to settle or limit those issues. This issue is tied to trial date issues, discussed below.

3.            Pre-Trial Deadlines and Trial Dates

Calendaring conflicts have arisen which makes the trial commencement date of September 15, 2025, problematic. The court requests that counsel be prepared to discuss this issue (and the corresponding settlement issues) at the CMC.

As a starting point for discussion, the parties should consider September 15 as a date at which the parties are prepared to commence trial, with all pretrial documents filed and motions briefed, even where commencement of trial is expected to be delayed. The parties should also continue to work towards settlement of Phase 1 issues or limitations on disputes as to those issues so that the expected scope of Phase 1 is well understood by September 15.

4.            Discovery

The court appreciates the update regarding on-going discovery. To the extent there are disputes (inchoate or fully developed), those disputes should be raised with the Special Master in the first instance.

5.            Supplemental Notice

The court applauds the efforts of the parties to get in front of any issues that may be asserted by late-appearing or late-participating parties by supplemental notice.

This issue includes efforts to emphasize that non-attorneys may not appear and represent entity litigants. To the extent that an order is sought, a motion is a better procedural vehicle so that there is no additional issue regarding these parties’ rights to notice and a meaningful hearing.

6.            Further Case Management Conferences

Counsel should be prepared to discuss dates for future case management conferences.