BEST BEST & KREGERLLP EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES ERIC L. GARR … · eric l. garr, bar no. 130665...

BEST BEST & KREGERLLPERIC L. GARR, Bar No. 130665JEFFREY V. DUN, Bar No. 131926STEFANIED. HEDLUN , BarNo. 239787

5 PAR PLAZA, SUITE 1500IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614TELEPHONE: (949) 263-2600TELECOPIER: (949) 260-0972

OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSELCOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

RAYMOND G. FORTNER, JR. , Bar No. 42230COUNTY COUNSELMICHAEL MOORE, Bar No. 175599DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL

500 WEST TEMPLE STREETLOS ANGELES , CALIFORNIA 90012TELEPHONE: (213) 974-1901TELECOPIER: (213) 458-4020

Attorneys for DefendantLOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKSDISTRICT NO. 40

EXEMPT FROM FILING FEESUNDER GOVERNMENT CODESECTION 6103

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRA DISTRICT

ANTELOPE VALLEYGROUNDWATER CASES

Included Actions:Los Angeles County Waterworks DistrictNo. 40 v. Diamond Farming Co. , SuperiorCourt of California, County of LosAngeles, Case No. BC 325201;

Los Angeles County Waterworks DistrictNo. 40 v. Diamond Farming Co. , SuperiorCourt of California, County of Kern, CaseNo. S- 1500-CV-254-348;

Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. v. City ofLancaster, Diamond Farming Co. v. City ofLancaster, Diamond Farming Co. v.Palmdale Water Dist. , Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of Riverside, Case Nos.RIC 353 840 , RIC 344 436, RIC 344 668

RELATED CASE TO JUICIAL COUNCILCOORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 4408

LOS ANGELES COUNTYWATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40'RESPONSES TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS,BOL THOUSE PROPERTIES, LLC ANDWM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC.'REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

(SET TWO)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40' S RESPONSES TO CROSS-DEFENDANTBOLTHOUSE' S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO

0.0,,-.O-. LD co

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jza:cna:

o:LLLL N-Of-sffo.u

f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD

PROPOUNING PARTY: Cross-Defendants BOLTHOUSE PROPERTIES , LLC and WM.

RESPONDING PARTY:

BOLTHOUSE FARS , INC.

Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS

SET NUER:DISTRICT NO. 40

Two (2)

Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO 40 ("District"

hereby responds to the Request for Admissions, Set Two , propounded by Cross-Defendants

BOLTHOUSE PROPERTIES , LLC AN WM. BOLTHOUSE FARS , INC. (collectively,

Bolthouse ) as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The District is in the process of conducting its investigation and discovery in this action.

Consequently, the District responds to these Requests to the best of its knowledge, but in doing

, reserves the right to amend its response at a future date. The District further reserves the right

to offer, at time of trial , facts, testimony or other evidence discovered subsequent to and not

included in this response, and assumes no obligation to voluntarily supplement or amend this

response to reflect such facts, testimony or other evidence.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

By responding to Bolthouse s Requests for Admission, Set Two , the District does not

concede the relevancy or materiality of any request, or of the subject to which such request refers.

Each response is made subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality,

propriety, admissibility, attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and the

deliberative process privilege, as well as any or all other objections and grounds which would

require exclusion of evidence. The District reserves the right to make any and all such objections

at trial and at any other proceeding relating to this action.


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '

o:LLLL N-Of-~~sffo.u~aJ~ui

f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD

The specific responses and objections given below are submitted without prejudice to , and

without waiving, any of these general objections even though the general objections are not

expressly set forth in each response.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

The District incorporates fully the foregoing Preliminary Statement and General

Objections into each of the following specific objections and responses, and no specific objection

or response shall be construed to waive any of the General Objections.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61

Admit that YOU are a PERSON as defined in the definitions above.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61

The District incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General

Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Without waiving the objections, the District

responds it is a public entity.


Admit that YOU are a public entity.


Admit.


Admit that during times when YOU contend the BASIN was in a condition of

OVERDRAFT , that YOU issued will-serve letters for new developments within your jurisdiction.



Objections as though expressly set forth herein. The District objects on the grounds that the

propounding party failed to define "will-serve letters" as required by Code of Civil Procedure

Section 2033. 060 , subdivision (e). As such, the Request for Admission is vague, ambiguous and

unintelligible. The District objects to this Request for Admission because it does not seek

information for the Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to focus their discovery


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD

requests upon the subject matter of the Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing objections

the District responds: Admit.


Admit that during times when YOU contend the groundwater supply within the BASIN

was in a condition of OVERDRAFT , that YOU issued will-serve letters for new developments

within your jurisdiction that had been approved on the basis of a negative declaration.




propounding party failed to define "will-serve letters" or "negative declaration" as required by

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033. 060 , subdivision (e). As such, the Request for Admission

is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. The District objects to this Request for Admission

because it does not seek information for the Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to

focus their discovery requests upon the subject matter of the Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the

foregoing objections, the District responds: The District admits that it has issued will serve letters

for new developments approved on basis of a negative declaration. The District denies that it was

always the lead agency responsible for preparation of the negative declaration.


Admit that YOU have not acquired prescriptive rights against these propounding parties

during the time period starting five (5) years before the commencement of the Los Angeles

County and Kern County actions fied by Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40.



Objections as though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to the Request for

Admission because it seeks admission of a legal matter, without reference to any fact, which is

outside the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.010. The

District objects to this Request for Admission because it does not seek information for the Phase

2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to focus their discovery requests upon the subject


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD

matter of the Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District responds:

Denied.



during the time period from January 25 2001 to January 25 , 1996.









Denied.



during the time period from January 25 , 1996 to January 25 , 1991.









Denied.


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD












Denied.












Denied.





0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD









Denied.












Denied.









0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD





Denied.












Denied.













0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD

Denied.












Denied.












Denied.





0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD









Denied.


Admit that the BASIN was not in OVERDRAFT during the time period from January 25

2001 to January 25 , 1996.



Objections as though expressly set forth herein. This Request for Admission is the subject of

expert witness investigation and may be answered at the time such expert witness investigation is

appropriately disclosed pursuant to Court Order and the Code of Civil Procedure. Without

waiving the foregoing objections, the District responds: Denied.



1996 to January 25 , 1991.








0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD



1991 to January 25 , 1986.









1986 to January 25 , 1981.









1981 to January 25 , 1976.








0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD



1976 to January 25 , 1971.









1971 to January 25 , 1966.









1966 to January 25 , 1961.








0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD



1961 to January 25 , 1956.









1956 to January 25 , 1951.









1951 to January 25 , 1946.








0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD



1946 to January 25 , 1940.








Admit that water demands, for the purposes of a claim of prescription of groundwater

rights, did not exceed water supplies during any time period during which YOU are making a

claim of prescription.



Objections as though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this Request for

Admission because it does not seek information for the Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the

parties to focus their discovery requests upon the subject matter of the Phase 2 trial. Without



Admit that the California Supreme Court Case of City of Los Angeles v. San Fernando

(1974) 14 Ca1.3d 199 278 is controlling law in the State of California with reference to the legal

definition of "Overdraft.





outside the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033. 010.


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD




definition of " safe yield.









definition of " temporary surplus.







Admit that the California Supreme Court Case of City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency

(2000) 23 CalAth 1224 is controlling law in the State of California regarding prioritization of

groundwater rights.







0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD


Admit the case of City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1974) 14 Ca 1. 3 d 199 is

controlling law in the State of California with reference to the legal definition of the " surplus. "







Admit that " safe yield " as defined by the Court in City of Los Angeles v. City of San

Fernando (1974) 14 Ca1.d 199 , is defined as the maximum quantity of water which can be

withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply over a long period of time under a given set 0

conditions without causing an undesirable result.







Admit that " surplus " as defined by the Court in City of Los Angeles v. City of San

Fernando (1974) 14 Ca1. d 199 , is defined as the additional amount of water that could be

withdrawn annually from a groundwater basin under a given set of conditions without causing an

undesirable result, which is an amount in excess of the annual amount being currently extracted

when the amount of water being currently extracted is less than the safe yield.






0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD



Admit that temporary surplus, as defined by the Court in City of Los Angeles v. City of

San Fernando (1974) 14 Ca1.d 199 , is defined as the additional amount of water in excess of the

safe yield that could be withdrawn from a groundwater basin, which if withdrawn would create

additional groundwater storage capacity and avoid waste of water without adversely affecting the

basin s safe yield.







Admit that "Overdraft " as defined by the Court in City of Los Angeles v. City of San

Fernando (1974) 14 Ca1.d 199 , is defined as the amount of water that is withdrawn annually

over a long period of time from a groundwater basin in excess of the total of the basin s safe yield

plus temporary surplus.







For each time period wherein YOU claim to have obtained a prescriptive right against

these propounding parties, admit that the characteristics of the BASIN do not support a claim of

prescription.




0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD



appropriately disclosed pursuant to Court Order and the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court has

directed the parties to focus their discovery requests upon the subject matter of the Phase 2 trial.

Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District responds: Denied.




OVERDRAFT.










priority.




propounding party failed to define "priority" as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section

2033. 060 , subdivision (e). As such, the Request for Admission is vague, ambiguous and

unintelligible. The Court has directed the parties to focus their discovery requests upon the

subject matter of the Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District

responds: Denied.


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD



these propounding parties, admit that the characteristics of the BASIN do not support YOUR

request for a physical solution.




propounding party failed to define "physical solution" as required by Code of Civil Procedure





the District responds: Denied.



these propounding parties, admit that YOU cannot prove a claim for appropriative rights.





outside the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033. 010. The



matter of the Phase 2 trial.


Admit that the characteristics of the BASIN do not support a claim for municipal priority.




0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD


propounding party failed to define "municipal priority" as required by Code of Civil Procedure







Admit that the characteristics of the BASIN do not support a water right claim based upon

imported water.




propounding party failed to define " imported water" as required by Code of Civil Procedure







Admit that the characteristics of the BASIN do not support a claim for return flows.




propounding party failed to define "return flows" as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section

2033. 060 , subdivision (e). As such, the Request for Admission is vague, ambiguous and




0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD



RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108:



propounding party failed to define "characteristics of the BASIN" as required by Code of Civil

Procedure Section 2033.060, subdivision (e). As such, the Request for Admission is vague

ambiguous and unintelligible. The District objects to this Request for Admission because it is the

subject of expert witness investigation and may be answered at the time such expert witness

investigation is appropriately disclosed pursuant to Court Order and the Code of Civil Procedure.

Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District responds as follows: Denied.






ambiguous and unintelligible. The District objects to this Request for Admission because it is the

subject of expert witness investigation and may be answered at the time such expert witness

investigation is appropriately disclosed pursuant to Court Order and the Code of Civil Procedure.

Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District responds as follows: Denied.






ambiguous and unintelligible. The District objects to this Request for Admission because it does

not seek information for the Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence for the Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to focus their


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD

discovery requests upon the subject matter of the Phase 2 trial. Furthermore, this Request for

Admission is the subject of expert witness investigation and may be answered at the time such

expert witness investigation is appropriately disclosed pursuant to Court Order and the Code

of Civil Procedure. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District responds as follows:

Denied.


The District incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

though expressly set forth herein. This Request for Admission is the subject of expert witness

investigation and may be answered at the time such expert witness investigation is appropriately

disclosed pursuant to Court Order and the Code of Civil Procedure. Without waiving the

foregoing objections, the District responds as follows: Denied




Admission because it is the subject of expert witness investigation and may be answered at the

time such expert witness investigation is appropriately disclosed pursuant to Court Order and the

Code of Civil Procedure. Without waiving the foregoing objections , the District responds as

follows: Denied




propounding party failed to define "physical solution" as required by Code of Civil Procedure

Section 203 3. 060, subdivision (e). As such, the Request for Admission is vague, ambiguous and

unintelligible. The District objects to this Request for Admission because it is the subject of



waiving the foregoing objections, the District responds as follows: Denied.


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD







follows: Denied.




propounding party failed to define "municipal priority" as required by Code of Civil Procedure









propounding party failed to define " imported water" as required by Code of Civil Procedure










0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD

propounding party failed to define "return flows" as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section

203 3. 060, subdivision (e). As such, the Request for Admission is vague, ambiguous and





RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 118:The District incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General





follows: Denied.







follows: Denied.



Objections as though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to the Request for Admission

because it seeks admission of a legal matter, without reference to any fact, which is outside the

scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033. 010. The district objects

on the grounds that the propounding party failed to define "Safe Yield" as required by Code of

Civil Procedure Section 2033. 060, subdivision (e). As such, the Request for Admission is vague

ambiguous and unintelligible. Furthermore , the District objects to this Request for Admission


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD

because it does not seek information for the Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence for the Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to

focus their discovery requests upon the subject matter of the Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the

foregoing objections, the District responds as follows: Denied.






District objects on the grounds that the propounding party failed to define "surplus" as required

by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033. 060 , subdivision ( e). As such, the Request for

Admission is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Furthermore, the District objects to this

Request for Admission because it does not seek information for the Phase 2 trial nor is it

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for the Phase 2 trial. The

Court has directed the parties to focus their discovery requests upon the subject matter of the

Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District responds as follows:

Denied.



Objections as though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to the Request

for Admission because it seeks admission of a legal matter, without reference to any fact

which is outside the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section

2033. 010. The District objects on the grounds that the propounding party failed to define

temporary surplus" as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033. 060, subdivision (e).

As such, the Request for Admission is vague , ambiguous and unintelligible. Furthermore

the District objects to this Request for Admission because it does not seek information for

the Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD

evidence for the Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to focus their discovery

requests upon the subject matter of the Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing

objections , the District responds as follows: Denied.





outside the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033. 010. The

District objects on the grounds that the propounding party failed to define "Overdraft" as required

by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033. 060 , subdivision ( e). As such, the Request for

Admission is vague , ambiguous and unintelligible. Furthermore, the District objects to this

Request for Admission because it does not seek information for the Phase 2 trial nor is it

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for the Phase 2 trial. The

Court has directed the parties to focus their discovery requests upon the subject matter of the

Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing objections , the District responds as

follows: Denied.

Dated: August 14, 2008 BEST BEST & KREGERLLP

By IslERIC L. GARRJEFFREY V. DUNSTEF ANIE D. HEDLUNAttorneys for DefendantLOS ANGELES COUNTYWATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40


0.0,,-.O~-. LD co

~(\

WWOJ(9t:o:cnw:Jz

~a:cna:

~ '


f-a:cno:-wo.;:aJLD

PROOF OF SERVICE

, Stefanie Hedlund, declare:

I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, andnot a party to the within action; my business address is Best Best & Krieger LLP, 5 Park PlazaSuite 1500 , Irvine, California 92614. On August 14 2008 , I served the within document(s):

LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40' S RESPONSES TOCROSS-DEFENDANTS , BOLTHOUSE PROPERTIES , LLC AN WM. BOLTHOUSEFARS , INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS , (SET TWO)

by posting the document(s) listed above to the Santa Clara County Superior Courtwebsite in regard to the Antelope Valley Groundwater matter.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postagethereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Irvine, California addressed asset forth below.

by causing personal delivery by ASAP Corporate Services of the document(s)listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.

by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at theaddress(es) set forth below.

I caused such envelope to be delivered via overnight delivery addressed as

indicated on the attached service list. Such envelope was deposited for deliveryby Federal Express following the firm s ordinary business practices.

I am readily familiar with the firm s practice of collection and processingcorrespondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. PostalService on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellationdate or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affdavit.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that theabove is true and correct.

Executed on August 14, 2008 , at Ontario , California.

Stefanie Hedlund


BEST BEST & KREGERLLP EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES ERIC L. GARR … · eric l. garr, bar no. 130665...

Documents

Transcript of BEST BEST & KREGERLLP EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES ERIC L. GARR … · eric l. garr, bar no. 130665...