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

Case Number

VENCI00555357

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/10/2024 - 15:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion re Phasing of Trial; Case Management Orders

Tentative Ruling

(See below)

Background:

Motions have been filed with respect to phasing of trial by the following:

(1)       OPV Coalition, et al. (Plaintiffs) (the Plaintiffs’ Motion).

(2)       City of San Buenaventura (Ventura), Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas MWD) (the Ventura-Calleguas Motion).

(3)       Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) (the FCGMA Motion).

(4)       United Water Conservation District (UWCS) and City of Camarillo (Camarillo) (the UWCD-Camarillo Motion).

The following parties have filed joinders in these motions:

(5)       Marathon Land and Certain Defendants (Marathon 100) partially join the proposals in the UWCD-Camarillo and Ventura-Calleguas Motions.

(6)       The David F. Laubacher Trust etc., et al., join the proposal in the Plaintiffs’ Motion.

(7)       The Nature Conservancy joins the proposal in the FCGMA Motion.

(8)       Dignity Health joins the proposal in the Ventura-Calleguas Motion.

Opposition or responses were filed by:

(1)       Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA Opposition).

(2)       Marathon 100 (Marathon 100 Opposition).

(3)       City of Camarillo, City of San Buenaventura, Calleguas Municipal Water District, United Water Conservation District, et al. (Camarillo Opposition).

(4)       United States of America (US Opposition).

(5)       OPV Coalition, et al. (Plaintiffs’ Opposition).

Replies and other post-opposition documents were filed by:

(1)       OPV Coalition, et al. (Plaintiffs’ Reply).

(2)       City of San Buenaventura, Calleguas Municipal Water District, United Water Conservation District, et al. (Ventura-Calleguas Reply).

(3)       Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA Reply).

(4)       United Water Conservation District and City of Camarillo (UWCD-Camarillo Reply).

(5)       Marathon 100 (Marathon 100 Reply).

(6)       United Water Conservation District, City of Camarillo, et al., reply statement regarding CMO procedures (UWCD-Camarillo Reply re CMO).

(7)       OPV Coalition, et al., response re CMO procedures (Plaintiffs’ Reply re CMO).

(8)       John W. Bochard Jr., trustee, et al., limited response.

In support of these motions, the following proposed orders have been lodged:

(1a)     Plaintiffs’ Motion proposed order (original).

(1b)     Plaintiffs’ Motion proposed order (alternative).

(2a)     UWCD-Camarillo Motion proposed order.

(2b)     UWCD-Camarillo proposed order re bifurcation and phasing.

(3)       Ventura-Calleguas Motion proposed order.

(4)       FCGMA Motion proposed order.

There are also objections, a response, and a proposed order to the declaration of William Blomquist, which declaration was filed in support of Plaintiffs’ motion.

In addition to the trial-phasing motions, there is also a proposed revised CMO, together with a statement filed by a number of defendants regarding the CMO procedure, and a response to that statement by the plaintiffs.

Analysis:

(1)       CMO Procedures

In response to the proposed draft CMO filed in advance of this hearing, defendants UWCD, Ventura, Calleguas MWD, Marathon Land, Inc., Camrosa Water District, Camarillo, City of Oxnard, FCGMA, California-American Water Company, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education & Welfare Corp., R.N. Daily Ranch, LLC, St. John’s Seminary in California, The Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Company, and The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (collectively, CMO Objectors) have filed a reply statement to the proposed draft May 10, 2024, CMO. The CMO Objectors assert that the CMO process is broken because of a failure of Plaintiffs to adhere to the parties’ agreed-upon schedule for circulating proposals and responses. The CMO Objectors particularly note that Plaintiffs provided an alternative to their original phasing motion late. In response, Plaintiffs argue that the process is not broken, but that the CMO Objectors have not engaged in the process fully and that the CMO Objectors always have had the opportunity to file their own proposals or responses.

The CMO process that the court is using is designed (1) to get the parties to agree on as much as can be agreed without court intervention, (2) to document what is that status of procedural orders in this case, (3) to document the precise proposals and disputes remaining, and (4) to move this complex case forward expediently. To achieve as much as possible before a CMC hearing, the parties need to communicate and to cooperate. Agreement is not always achievable in the timeframe between CMC hearings; disagreement is unfortunately inevitable. The “confer” part of meet-and-confer necessarily involves consideration and, hopefully, compromise toward common goals. If the meet-and-confer process is functionally ongoing at the time deadlines are reached, because, as here, the one set of parties moves from its initial position, the preferred approach is to allow the process to reach its end by agreement or impasse and to report to the court that status. It is inefficient for the court to impose a resolution based upon adversarial positions where a more cooperative approach is feasible. At the same time, progress in this case is not be obstructed by extending discussion that is unlikely to lead to a resolution or narrowing of issues.

As discussed below, the court will provide guidance on the phasing and scheduling issues presented, but will not reach a final disposition of these matters at this time. The court is not persuaded that a change to the CMO process is necessary or appropriate at this time.

(2)       Phasing of Trial

Without discussing the merits of each motion individually, the court provides the following guidance to the parties for further discussion. The following is intended only as a general discussion. For ease of writing, the court will not add or repeat qualifiers, such as “generally” or “among other things,” but recognizes that the following statements may be subject to conditions, qualifications, and exceptions.

The court agrees that trial should be in three phases: (1) the determination of a safe yield (as discussed below); (2) the determination of groundwater rights; and (3) a physical solution, i.e., sustainable groundwater management consistent with all applicable law. The determination in each phase will necessarily affect the scope and issues of the following phase or phases. The court expects substantial settlement efforts to eliminate or to narrow the scope of disputes requiring adjudication throughout this litigation. This sequencing rejects Plaintiffs’ initial proposal for a different sequencing.

With respect to the first phase, the court notes that one area of disagreement is the scope of the “safe yield” as that term is used in the previous paragraph. “ ‘Safe yield’ is defined as ‘the maximum quantity of water which can be withdrawn annually from a ground water supply under a given set of conditions without causing an undesirable result.’ The phrase ‘undesirable result’ is understood to refer to a gradual lowering of the ground water levels resulting eventually in depletion of the supply. [Citation.]” (City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 278, disapproved on other grounds in City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1248.) This definition is a more generalized description of the definition of “sustainable yield” in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: “ ‘Sustainable yield’ means the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result. (Wat. Code, § 10721, subd. (w).) Thus, the “safe yield” is an outflow calculation determined, in part, based upon the inflow. The inflow part of “total safe yield” is axiomatically the sum of native sources and non-native sources of water.

While native and non-native inflow sources and outflow uses may be treated differently for purposes of ascertaining water rights, the total safe yield, as distinguished from native safe yield, is nonetheless also an important concept in understanding and determining appropriate groundwater management. As a result, “total safe yield,” divided into its component inflows, will need to be determined at some point. Because all inflows and outflows have factual connections, addressing these issues together makes for a reasonably efficient adjudication (to the extent the parties are unable to fully resolve these issues by stipulation). Additionally, the determination of inflows and outflows, with necessary and appropriate breakdowns into component parts, will provide the court and the parties with a stronger foundation upon which to make further determinations and to promote settlement with a fuller understanding of the total picture. The court thus is inclined to address all inflow and outflow issues at one time within phase  1.

The court makes no determinations at this hearing. The court will leave it to the parties to discuss these issues in the context of this guidance. The parties will report back to the court with supplemental papers to be filed at least 10 court days prior to the next CMC hearing.

(2)       Discovery and Scheduling

The proposed CMO for this hearing includes a number of proposals addressing discovery and scheduling, but conditioned upon the court’s resolution of the phase 1 issues. As the above discussion elaborates, the court is not deciding the phasing issues at this hearing, so these issues are premature and warrant further meeting and conferring.

In any case, the court is not inclined to lift the discovery stay so as to permit uncontrolled discovery. Discovery in a complex case of this sort is constantly the subject of competing concerns over timing, breadth, and completeness. (See generally Code Civ. Proc., §§ 840, subd. (b)(7), 2017.020, 2019.020, subd. (b), 2019.030.) To allow discovery to proceed expediently and efficiently, discovery needs to occur pursuant to an organized discovery plan. The court requests the parties to discuss this issue and also the appointment of a discovery referee/ special master to create, monitor, and enforce such a plan and to resolve discovery disputes.

For the same reasons, the court is not setting any scheduling orders at this hearing.

(3)       Other CMO Issues

Two proposals in the proposed CMO appear to be uncontroversial:

(Proposal D) “Absent good cause, any party filing a noticed motion must attempt in good faith to meet and confer with other parties to avoid the need for that motion at least one week prior to filing the motion.”

(Proposal E) “All filed answers are deemed responsive to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Verified Complaint, filed on March 29, 2024. Parties who filed an answer in response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint or First Amended Verified Complaint need not file another answer in response to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Verified Complaint.”

Both of these proposals are well taken and will be adopted.