Laserfiche WebLink
{ • F �^Y <br /> Services:tir' Mead Data Central,. Inc. <br /> PAGE 19 <br /> 1 ' . 1991 1"U.S. App. LEXIS 30233, *46 <br /> i siismiss is that: ,"they have ' told all- they know. "' Hendler II at 31 n.9. The <br /> e court concluded that the Government was clearly prejudiced in its defense of the <br /> suit. "'Defendant has n means of anticipating how plaintiffs will attempt to <br /> prone that there is no econoiical y viable use of their property. At some paint <br /> in the proceeding, plaintiffs must marshal facts which prove haw the EPA <br /> activities have deprived thei of an economically viable use of their property:.." <br /> Hertdler II at ,3Z (emphasis in original) . <br /> x As a general rule, trial c-.ourts are given wide discretion to manage t`he <br /> course of a trial, and to direct the conduct of counsel. But this iscratich is <br /> not without limits. We review the trial court's dismissal decision for an abuse <br /> 1 <br /> Of: rdiscretion." Nat'l kockey Ceaque v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc. , 427 U S.«, b39 <br /> 642 (1976) ; Adkins v. United ,states, 816 i=.2d 1580, 1581-82 (Fed. Cir. #98 ) . Air <br /> abuse of discretion may be found when (1) the court's decision is clearly <br /> unreasonable, ;arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) the decision is based an an erroneous <br /> conclusion of .the law; (3) the court'$ findings are clearly erroneous or (4) <br /> the record contains :na evidence upon which the court. rationally could <br /> have based its decis%orr. West Flea. Co. Inca v. Piezo Tet~ttrtology, Inc., 864 <br /> F.2d 428, 429-30. (Fed, Cir, 1988) . <br /> ,P <br /> k <br />' The 1 n te�r:roga to r es <br /> The; I:nterrogatl�ries at. issue are nine in number. They break dawn tnta two <br /> peraerail categr ries; (1 ) interrogatories cancern;ing the Government's own ; <br /> activities, and (x) tntertCtt�at }ris seekinq to establish VC0110mu impact. <br /> t:nterragatOrie5.. conce'rniinq the Government's own activities 1 <br /> i <br /> • ;IntecragatQ�ries 8, A 3, °14and 16-16 deal with t11e particulars; of the <br /> is Go4rnoent1s activities ori the plaintiffs' properttes. The Eovernment's argument <br /> is ,.that HOhdlei� has simply cobseh to be J uncooperativit in responding td its <br /> interrogatories artd su:polOn,g, the evidence to enable the court to determine if a. <br /> taking did occur, and ff spy what would de just; compensafony Irtterragatciries Z <br /> and 17 are i llrstrative. 'i <br /> " tq. <br /> A I:.:. 131. <br /> C <br /> What is the factual basis forlplaintiffscontention that EPA has taken <br /> plaintiffs' property by drivipq heavy machinery, trucks, artri other vehicles c�ntci <br /> the SublJett Property:? 11. <br /> • �1 r <br /> Wha't is ;the factual basis. ford plaintiffs'` contention that EPA has taken <br /> plaii .ntiffs ' property by C4$3 detonating explosives ort the SubjectPropertr?" <br /> ';Ie'n:iti:X :a:t '76.: .8: :. <br /> If the 4questions are intended to ask, when and how often did the :Government: drive heavy .machinery and: det6nate explosives on plaintiffs' property, it is <br /> hard: to know what more plaintiffs should have said. Plaintiffs ' <br /> - final answer' to <br /> interrogatory 13,, for example, listed the exact parcels on which the driving <br /> t ' ogcurred, listed driving-related activities such as °'monitoring wells," anti <br /> stated that they did not itnow:j for certain which driving was EPA's .and whicK was <br />( :alifornia's, but that discovery was continuing. Plaintiffs then added that <br /> LZXIS. :�iNEX1'11S'&LEX1S`&NEX1S" <br /> i <br /> J <br />