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

Case Number

VENCI00555357

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 06/13/2025 - 15:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Order to Notice Additional Groundwater Procedures; CMC

Tentative Ruling

On calendar for June 13, 2025, as of this posting, are: (1) the unopposed motion of plaintiffs for an order providing supplemental notice to non-appearing groundwater producers; (2) orders requested by the Special Master’s Report No. 5 re Phase 1 Scheduling; and (3) new matters, including issues raised in plaintiffs’ case management statement and the responses of Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency and the City of Camarillo.

(1)           The motion of plaintiffs for an order providing supplemental notice to non-appearing groundwater producers, filed May 21, 2025, is unopposed and is well taken. The motion will be granted.

(2)           The Special Master’s Report No. 5 proposes disposition of six scheduling items: (i) the filing dates for trial briefs; (ii) the submission of pretrial proposed statements of decision (PSODs); (iii) due dates for written testimony; (iv) the scope of written testimony; (v) calendaring for other miscellaneous matters; and (vi) settlement procedures and timing.

                (i)            The parties agree, and the Special Master recommends, that the pretrial schedule be adjusted to require trial briefs to be filed on or before September 2, 2025. This is appropriate and will be ordered.

                (ii)           Certain parties have requested that the court permit, but not require, parties to submit PSODs in advance of trial. Other parties object to such a procedure as unauthorized and problematic. The Special Master recommended a deadline of September 5, 2025, in the event that the court found the concerns unpersuasive and believed that PSODs would be helpful.

The court does not believe that PSODs are prohibited or legally problematic, but the court also does not believe that PSODs would be helpful for Phase 1. The issues to be decided in Phase 1 are narrow. Each party’s specific requested findings as to total and native safe yields for the basins will necessarily be stated exactly in their respective trial briefs. Any other requested findings would presumably track the testimony of the respective party’s expert. PSODs are therefore not requested.

                (iii), (iv) Witness testimony may be provided in writing in lieu of live testimony under Code of Civil Procedure section 844. The parties have different perspectives on when such testimony shall be provided and the scope of such testimony.

“A court may require the parties in a comprehensive adjudication to submit written testimony of relevant witnesses in the forms of affidavits or declarations under penalty of perjury in lieu of presenting live testimony. The required written testimony may include, but is not limited to, expert witness opinions and testimony that authenticates documentary evidence. The court may order that the written testimony constitutes the entirety of the witness’s direct testimony, require the written testimony to include any exhibits offered in support of the written testimony, and, in the case of written testimony of an expert witness, require a statement of the witness’s qualifications.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 844, subd. (a).)

“If the court requires the submission of written testimony pursuant to subdivision (a), a complete copy of the direct testimony shall be served at least 21 days before trial. A complete copy of any rebuttal testimony shall be served no later than the first day of trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 844, subd. (b).)

“If the contents of the written testimony would have been admissible if the witness testified orally, the written testimony shall be received by the court as a documentary exhibit if the witness whose written testimony is being offered is made available for cross-examination by all parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 844, subd. (c).)

As pointed out by the responding parties, the court’s order of December 17, 2024, regarding expert discovery includes the following provisions:

                “Parties shall disclose the name of each person whose expert testimony the party expects to offer at trial, via Case Anywhere. The disclosure made pursuant to this subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the expert witness. The report shall include all of the information required by Code of Civil Procedure section 843 and shall be considered written testimony pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 844(a). The Court shall receive the written testimony as a documentary exhibit if the witness is made available for cross-examination by all parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 844(c).” (Order, Dec. 17, 2024, ¶ 7(a).)

“Parties shall disclose the name of each person whose rebuttal expert testimony the party expects to offer at trial, via Case Anywhere. The rebuttal disclosure made pursuant to this subdivision (b) shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the expert witness. The report shall include all of the information required by Code of Civil Procedure section 843 and shall be considered written testimony pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 844(a). The Court shall receive the written testimony as a documentary exhibit if the witness is made available for cross-examination by all parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 844(c).” (Order, Dec. 17, 2024, ¶ 7(a).)

Because of the technical nature of the principal evidence for Phase 1 and the enhanced utility of written testimony when evaluating alternatives, the court will require that all direct testimony be provided in writing to the fullest extent provided by section 844, subdivision (a), including all expert testimony. As set forth in the December 17 order, expert written testimony will be in the form of the written reports. Because of the expected nature of these expert reports and disclosures, it is unclear to what extent further written direct or rebuttal expert testimony would be necessary or appropriate. To the extent further written expert written testimony is proffered, the court will resolve any issues regarding such testimony prior to trial consistent with the court’s orders and applicable law, including the limits on new expert testimony.

The court will reserve for later disposition whether, with good cause shown, some direct live testimony may be offered to supplement written testimony, but the parties should assume no direct live testimony would be permitted.

Mindful of the September 2, 2025, trial brief deadline, the Special Master recommends adopting August 19, 2025, as the deadline for section 844 direct testimony and August 26, 2025, as the deadline for section 844 rebuttal testimony. The court agrees with these scheduling deadlines and will adopt them.

                (v)           The Special Master reports consensus with the following dates, which the Special Master recommends, and the court will adopt:

Deadline to disclose intent to participate in the Phase 1 trial: August 8, 2025

Exchange of initial exhibit list and list of testifying witnesses: September 8, 2025

Final Status Conference/Pretrial Motions: September 15, 2025

Post-hearing PSODs: Submitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 632.

Fox Canyon also suggests that the court set a deadline of September 10 for filing pretrial motions. The court will discuss this with the parties.

                (vi)          The parties will have a video conference with the Special Master on July 1, 2025, to address the settlement process. The Special Master recommends that the court order the parties to identify and nominate settlement officers no later than June 27, 2025 (and prior to nomination verify the settlement officer’s availability), and that the court order that the settlement conference, in whatever form is determined, to occur no later than August 13, 2025. These dates are reasonable and will be ordered.

                (vii)        These items need to be reflected in an order without the additional matters included in plaintiffs’ proposed order.

(3)           Other matters

Matters raised by plaintiffs in their CMC statement are (i) setting further case management conference dates, and (ii) identifying legislative activity.

                (i)            The court will set further case management conferences for July 11. The court will discuss with the parties the need and timing for additional pretrial case management conferences.

                (ii)           It has been noted that there is pending legislation that may affect comprehensive groundwater adjudications. Until legislation applying to this action is enacted, the court will continue on the assumption that the statutes are applicable in their present form.