Law offices of young wooldridge



Download 235.94 Kb.
Page1/3
Date conversion19.05.2016
Size235.94 Kb.
  1   2   3
SCOTT K. KUNEY, Esq., SB# 111115

ERNEST A. CONANT, Esq., SB# 89111

STEVEN M. TORIGIANI, Esq., SB# 166773

LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE

1800 30th Street, Fourth Floor

Bakersfield, California 93301

(661) 327-9661
Attorneys for Cross-Defendants, Chevron USA Inc,

Conoco Inc., Nuevo Energy Company, Aera Energy LLC

and Texaco Exploration and Production Inc.


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SANTA MARIA VALLEY WATER ) SANTA MARIA GROUNDWATER

CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a public ) LITIGATION

entity, )

Plaintiff, ) Lead Case No. CV 770214

)


vs. ) Judge Conrad L. Rushing

)

CITY OF SANTA MARIA, a municipal )



corporation; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ) AERA ENERGY LLC’S

WATER COMPANY, a California ) ANSWERS TO SPECIALLY

corporation; and CITY OF GUADALUPE, ) PREPARED INTERROGATORIES

a municipal corporation; DOES 1 through ) BY U.S. TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,

3,000, inclusive, ) AS TRUSTEE OF THE

) VECCHIOLI FAMILY TRUST

Defendants. )

)

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS )



)
REQUESTING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Complainant, U.S. TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE OF THE VECCHIOLI FAMILY TRUST
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant AERA ENERGY LLC
SET NO: ONE
TO Plaintiff/Cross-Complainant, U.S. TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE OF THE VECCHIOLI FAMILY TRUST AND TO ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

Defendant/Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant AERA ENERGY LLC (hereinafter “The Responding Party”) hereby respond to Plaintiff/Cross-Complainant, U.S. TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE OF THE VECCHIOLI FAMILY TRUST’s First Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.

GENERAL RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS

The Responding Party has not fully completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed discovery in this action, and has not completed preparation for trial. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents which are presently available to and specifically known to The Responding Party and discloses only those contentions which presently occur to Responding Party. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research, and analysis will supply additional facts, add meaning to the known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the contentions herein set forth.

The following responses are given without prejudice to The Responding Party’s right to produce evidence of subsequently discovered fact or facts which The Responding Party may later recall. The Responding Party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all answers herein as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed and contentions are made. The answers contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as presently known, but should in no way be to the prejudice of the Responding Party in relation to further discovery, research or analysis.

RESPONSES



RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

The Responding Party hereby objects to Interrogatory 1 on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and wholly unintelligible in that it is not possible to determine what is meant by the use of the phrase “should be included”. As an illustration and without limitation to further grounds for objection, it is not possible to determine whether this phrase is meant to refer to some physical or hydrogeological necessity, economic analysis, political or policy imperative, or other basis known to the Propounding Party but unknown to the Responding Party.

The Responding Party hereby objects to Interrogatory 1 on the ground that it calls for a response which requires the Responding Party to divulge the legal analysis, mental impressions, legal research, and litigation strategy of counsel and all such information is protected and absolutely privileged according to the attorney work product privilege doctrine.

The Responding Party hereby objects to Interrogatory 1 on the ground that it calls for a response which requires the Responding Party to divulge confidential communications between the Responding Party and its legal counsel and all such communications are protected and absolutely privileged according to the attorney client privilege doctrine.

The Responding Party hereby objects to Interrogatory 1 on the ground that it calls for a response which requires the Responding Party to divulge confidential communications between Mr. Charles W. Binder, acting as a member of the Court authorized Technical Committee, and other members of the Technical Committee contrary to the April 10, 2000 Technical Committee Protective Order regarding matters discussed during Technical Committee meetings.

The Responding Party hereby objects to Interrogatory 1 on the ground that it calls for a response which requires that the Responding Party determine or assume legal conclusions which have yet to be presented and determined by the Court as part of the Phase II litigation. Whether any area “should” or “must” be included or excluded from the adjudicated Basin boundary is a matter to be determined by the Court after consideration of the evidence introduced at trial. Responding Party objects to Interrogatory 1 on the ground that it requests the Responding Party to pre-determine what legal conclusion the Court “should” or “must” reach.



RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Without waiving any of the protections of the April 10, 2000 Technical Committee Protective Order regarding matters discussed during Technical Committee meetings, the facts which are relied upon by the Responding Party to support the response to Interrogatory 1 are as follows:

The Court has rendered its judgment as to the hydrogeological boundaries of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin (“Basin”). At present the Responding Party is unaware of any facts which tend to indicate that the Basin boundaries for this litigation “should” or “must” be anything other than what has been adjudicated by the Court. Nonetheless, in Case Management Order No. 6, it is provided at Section I (1) that at the conclusion of the Phase II trial of this case, the Court “will decide the limits of the area that will be included in this groundwater adjudication and the areas (possibly denominated as separate “basins” or “sub-basins” or “management units”) that may be excluded from this case, whether because pumping in those areas does not materially affect water supplies in other areas of the Basin or for any other reason the Court deems legally relevant”. Further, the Court provided that the “Technical Committee to meet and attempt to reach a consensus regarding Phase II issues”.

Pursuant to Case Management Orders No. 4 and 6, and April 10, 2000 Order Re Technical Committee, Mr. Charles W. Binder has been designated by the Responding Party to serve as a member of the Technical Committee. In that capacity Mr. Binder has reviewed and discussed various suggestions, with supporting information, on what areas presently identified as part of the Basin may be excluded from this case. To date, the areas discussed have included generally the following three areas: 1) Northern Cities area; 2) Nipomo Valley; 3) Sisquoc Plain. While the Technical Committee has discussed these matters on several occasions no final conclusion regarding these Phase II issues has yet been reached by the members of the Technical Committee.

Other than through participation in the meetings of the Technical Committee, the Responding Party has given no other consideration to whether any area presently included in the Basin boundaries may be legally excluded.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Without waiving any of the protections of the April 10, 2000 Technical Committee Protective Order regarding matters discussed during Technical Committee meetings, the names of the persons who have knowledge of the facts stated in response to Interrogatory 2 above are as follows:



Name Phone No. Representing
Bob Wagner 916-441-6850 City of Santa Maria

Jim Hanson 916-448-2821 City of Santa Maria

Paul Sorenson 805-542-0797 Ag Group

Bill Dendy 530-758-3131 Nipomo CSD

Bob Beeby 805-966-0811 Nipomo CSD

Stan Powell 916-979-3737 Nipomo CSD

Terry Foreman 805-371-7822 Southern Cal Water, et al.

Joe Scalmanini 530-661-0109 SMVWCD

Liese Schadt 530-661-0109 SMVWCD

Richard Slade 818-506-0418 Northern Cities

Scott Moors 805-383-0064 Guadalupe

Barry Hecht 510-527-0727 Hanson

Tim Cleath 805-543-1413 LeRoy Trust

Chuck Binder 916-631-3206 Oil Group


RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Without waiving any of the protections of the April 10, 2000 Technical Committee Protective Order regarding matters discussed during Technical Committee meetings, the addresses of the persons identified in response to Interrogatory 3 above are as follows:



Name Address
Bob Wagner Wagner & Bonsignore, 444 North Third Street Suite 325,

Sacramento, CA 95814-0228

Jim Hanson 444 North Third Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-0228

Paul Sorenson Fugro West, Inc., 1012 Pacific Street, Suite A, San Luis Obispo,

CA 93401

Bill Dendy 429 “F” Street, #2, Davis, CA 95616

Bob Beeby 816 State Street, Suite 500, Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Stan Powell Science Applications International Corporation, 3800 Watt Ave.,

Suite 210, Sacramento, CA 95821

Terry Foreman CH2M Hill, 325 East hillcrest Drive, Suite 125, Thousand Oaks,

CA 91360-5828

Joe Scalmanini Luhdorff & Scalmanini, 500 First Street, Woodland, CA 95695

Liese Schadt Luhdorff & Scalmanini, 500 First Street, Woodland, CA 95695

Richard Slade Richard C. Slade & Associates, LLC, 6442 Coldwater Canyon

Ave., Suite 214, No. Hollywood, CA 91606

Scott Moors Bing Yen & Associates, Inc., 2310 Ponderosa Drive, Suite 1,

Camarillo, CA 93010

Barry Hecht Balance Hydrologics, Inc., 900 Modoc Street, Berkeley, CA

94707-2208

Tim Cleath Cleath & Associates, 1390 Oceanaire Drive, San Luis Obispo,

CA 93405

Chuck Binder Navigant Consulting, Inc., 3100 Zinfandel Drive, Suite 600,

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Without waiving any of the protections of the April 10, 2000 Technical Committee Protective Order regarding matters discussed during Technical Committee meetings, the writings that support the response to Interrogatory 1 above , either in whole or part, are as follows:



*______________, various dates, “Gentleman’s Agreement,” packet of various agreements, memoranda, and other documents all referred to as the gentleman’s agreement concerning pumping in the Arroyo Grande/Tri-Cities area.

*California Department of Water Resources, May 1958, San Luis Obispo County Investigation, Volume I-Text and Plates, Bulletin No. 18.

*California Department of Water Resources, May 1958, San Luis Obispo County Investigation, Volume II-Appendices, Bulletin No. 18.

*California Department of Water Resources, February 1970, Sea-Water Intrusion: Pismo-Guadalupe Area, Bulletin No. 63-3.

*California Department of Water Resources, September 1975, California’s Ground Water, Bulletin No. 118.

*California Department of Water Resources, January 2000, Water Resources of the Arroyo Grande-Nipomo Mesa Area, Southern District, Revised Final Draft Report.

*CH2M Hill, August 16, 2000, Proposed Methodology to Delineate Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Boundaries, memorandum prepared by Terry Foreman.

*CH2M Hill, December 2000, Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, map designated as Exhibit A to the declaration of Terry Foreman.

*Cleath, Timothy S., June 17, 1986, Ground Water Resources, Parcel Map AG-79-52, Letter report submitted to Busick-Gearing Development Co.

*Cleath, Timothy S., February 8, 1989, Site Assessment Plan, Gasoline Contamination in Soil at 148 S. Wilson Street, Nipomo, California, Letter report submitted to Nipomo Community Services District.

*Cleath & Associates, June 15, 1990, Water Supply Availability, Nipomo Valley Speedling Corporation Project, Letter report submitted to Studio Design Group.

*Cleath & Associates, November 14, 1990, Pump Test at New Church Site, Thompson Road at Highway 101, Nipomo, California, APN 901-091-043, Letter report submitted to Nipomo Community Presbyterian Church.

*Cleath & Associates, October 28, 1994, Hilton Site Hydrogeologic Assessment Report, Letter report submitted to South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District.

*Cleath & Associates, November 23, 1994, Bartleson Hydrogeologic Studies, Letter report and Appendix B (Hydrogeologic Study for Bartleson Development Plan) submitted to The Morro Group.

*Cleath & Associates, November 20, 1995, Mehlschau Site Hydrogeologic Assessment Report, APN 090-051-023, Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County, Letter report submitted to South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District.

*Cleath & Associates, April 1996, Water Resources Management Study for The Woodlands, Report prepared for U.S. Industries.

*Cleath & Associates, July 1997, Hydrogeologic Study of the Nipomo Community Services District Wastewater Disposal Site, Report prepared for Nipomo Community Services District.

*Cleath & Associates, October 1, 1997, Ground Water Study at Hi Thompson Investments Property, Sheehy Road at North Dana Foothill Road (APN# 090-041-072), Arroyo Grande, Letter report submitted to Hi Thompson Investments, Inc.

*Cleath & Associates, October 27, 1998, Hydrogeologic Assessment of the Proposed Lucia Mar USD High School Site, Thompson Road, Nipomo, Letter report submitted to Firma.

*Cleath & Associates, February 11, 2000, January 2000 Ground Water Monitoring at Mesa Dunes Mobile Home Park, Nipomo Mesa, Letter report submitted to John L. Wallace and Associates.

*Cleath & Associates, March 31, 2000, Report for January 2000 Ground Water Monitoring at Cypress Ridge, Nipomo Mesa, Waste Discharge Order 97-66, Letter report submitted to John L. Wallace and Associates.

*Cleath & Associates, March 2001, Nipomo Valley/Nipomo Mesa Geologic Cross Sections.

*Cleath & Associates, May 2, 2001, Municipal Ground Water Production from Arroyo Grande/Tri-Cities Mesa, Letter report submitted to Expert Group for the Santa Maria Valley Ground Water Basin Litigation.

*Dendy, Bill, March 3, 2001 (draft), Outline of Potential Groundwater Management Approach for the Nipomo Mesa Management Area and Adjacent Management Areas.

*Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., 1989, Geologic Map of the Casmalia and Orcutt Quadrangles, Santa Barbara County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-24, 1:24,000.

*Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., 1989, Geologic Map of the Point Sal and Guadalupe Quadrangles, Santa Barbara County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-25, 1:24,000.

*Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., 1994, Geologic Map of the Santa Maria and Twitchell Dam Quadrangles, Santa Barbara County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-51, 1:24,000.

*Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., 1994, Geologic Map of the Tepusquet Canyon Quadrangle, Santa Barbara County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-52, 1:24,000.

*Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., 1994, Geologic Map of the Sisquoc Quadrangle, Santa Barbara County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-53, 1:24,000.

*Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., 1994, Geologic Map of the Foxen Canyon Quadrangle, Santa Barbara County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-54, 1:24,000.

*Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., 1994, Geologic Map of the Zaca Lake Quadrangle, Santa Barbara County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-55, 1:24,000.

*Enloe Well Drilling, January 4, 2000, Pump Test Report and Well Completion Report for Patterson Academy Well.

*James C. Hanson Consulting Civil Engineer, June 8, 2000, Groundwater well information and groundwater elevation data for selected wells from data base provided by Santa Barbara County Flood Control & Water Conservation District and Water Agency.

*James C. Hanson Consulting Civil Engineer, June 2000, Topographical base map with delineation of Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Boundary, Scale 1 inch equals 4,000 feet.

*Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers, March 2000, Development of a Numerical Ground-Water Flow Model and Assessment of Ground-Water Basin Yield, Santa Maria Valley Ground-Water Basin, Report prepared for Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District.

*Nitchman, Steve P., May 1988, Tectonic Geomorphology and Neotectonics of the San Luis Range, San Luis Obispo County, California, Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology, University of Nevada, Reno.

*San Luis Obispo County, December 2000, Boundary Map, Zone 3—Lopez Water Systems, County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, map prepared by Engineering Department, Hydraulic Operations Division.

*Science Applications International Corporation, February 2001 (draft), Orthophoto base map of Nipomo Mesa Management Area.

*Science Applications International Corporation, February 2001 (draft), Topographic base map of Nipomo Mesa Management Area.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1965, Nipomo, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1967, Caldwell Mesa, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1967, Chimney Canyon, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1967, Tar Spring Ridge, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, Foxen Canyon, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, Huasna Peak, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, Point Sal, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, Sisquoc, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1978, Orcutt, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1978, Tepusquet Canyon, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1982, Casmalia, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1982, Guadalupe, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1982, Santa Maria, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1982, Twitchell Dam, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1993, Arroyo Grande NE, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1994, Oceano, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*U.S. Geological Survey, 1994, Pismo Beach, Calif. Quadrangle, 1:24,000.

*Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers, September 2000, Geologic base map with delineation of Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Boundary, Scale 1 inch equals 4,000 feet.

*Wagner, Robert C. and James C. Hanson, September 2000, Working Map Showing Approximate Limits of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin.

*Worts, G. F., Jr., 1951, Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Santa Maria Valley Area, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 1000.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

The Responding Party hereby objects to Interrogatory 6 on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and wholly unintelligible in that it is not possible to determine what is meant by the use of the phrase “must be included”. As an illustration and without limitation to further grounds for objection, it is not possible to determine whether this phrase is meant to refer to some physical or hydrogeological necessity, economic analysis, political or policy imperative, or other basis known to the Propounding Party but unknown to the Responding Party.

The Responding Party hereby objects to Interrogatory 6 on the ground that it calls for a response which requires the Responding Party to divulge the legal analysis, mental impressions, legal research, and litigation strategy of counsel and all such information is protected and absolutely privileged according to the attorney work product privilege doctrine.

The Responding Party hereby objects to Interrogatory 6 on the ground that it calls for a response which requires the Responding Party to divulge confidential communications between the Responding Party and its legal counsel and all such communications are protected and absolutely privileged according to the attorney client privilege doctrine.

The Responding Party hereby objects to Interrogatory 6 on the ground that it calls for a response which requires the Responding Party to divulge confidential communications between Mr. Charles W. Binder, acting as a member of the Court authorized Technical Committee, and other members of the Technical Committee contrary to the April 10, 2000 Technical Committee Protective Order regarding matters discussed during Technical Committee meetings.

The Responding Party hereby objects to Interrogatory 6 on the ground that it calls for a response which requires that the Responding Party determine or assume legal conclusions which have yet to be presented and determined by the Court as part of the Phase II litigation. Whether any area “should” or “must” be included or excluded from the adjudicated Basin boundary is a matter to be determined by the Court after consideration of the evidence introduced at trial. Responding Party object to Interrogatory 6 on the ground that it requests the Responding Party to pre-determine what legal conclusion the Court “should” or “must” reach.



RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Without waiving any of the protections of the April 10, 2000 Technical Committee Protective Order regarding matters discussed during Technical Committee meetings, the facts which are relied upon by the Responding Party, and each of them, to support the response to Interrogatory 6 are as follows:

The Court has rendered its judgment as to the hydrogeological boundaries of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin (“Basin”). At present the Responding Party are unaware of any facts which tend to indicate that the Basin boundaries for this litigation “should” or “must” be anything other than what has been adjudicated by the Court. Nonetheless, in Case Management Order No. 6, it is provided at Section I (1) that at the conclusion of the Phase II trial of this case, the Court “will decide the limits of the area that will be included in this groundwater adjudication and the areas (possibly denominated as separate “basins” or “sub-basins” or “management units”) that may be excluded from this case, whether because pumping in those areas does not materially affect water supplies in other areas of the Basin or for any other reason the Court deems legally relevant”. Further, the Court provided that the “Technical Committee to meet and attempt to reach a consensus regarding Phase II issues”.

Pursuant to Case Management Orders No. 4 and 6, and April 10, 2000 Order Re Technical Committee, Mr. Charles W. Binder has been designated by the Responding Party to serve as a member of the Technical Committee. In that capacity Mr. Binder has reviewed and discussed various suggestions, with supporting information, on what areas presently identified as part of the Basin may be excluded from this case. To date, the areas discussed have included generally the following three areas: 1) Northern Cities area; 2) Nipomo Valley; 3) Sisquoc Plain. While the Technical Committee has discussed these matters on several occasions no consensus regarding these Phase II issues has been reached by the members of the Technical Committee.

Other than through participation in the meetings of the Technical Committee, the Responding Party have given no other consideration to whether any area presently included in the Basin boundaries may be legally excluded.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Without waiving any of the protections of the April 10, 2000 Technical Committee Protective Order regarding matters discussed during Technical Committee meetings, the names of the persons who have knowledge of the facts stated in response to Interrogatory 7 above are as follows:


  1   2   3


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page