|
ServiCPs of Mead Data Central, Inc.
<br /> PAGE ZQ
<br /> 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30233, *48
<br /> ""'Property
<br /> 'POoperty Owners have 5cheduied the depositions of EPA employees to learn' about
<br /> EPA activities' on the Sublect' Property."
<br /> Neither party has suggested that some private individual surreptitiously
<br /> entered onto plaintiffs' land to install the wells. Nor is there any suggestion
<br /> tbat plaintiffs' themselves installed the wells. Thus, the wells must have been
<br /> installed *pursuant to the Vkls order. The EPA, one must assume, is aware of
<br /> what wells and; support equipment were installed, the methods by which the
<br /> excavation occurred., and the extent of ongoing intrusion on plaintiffs, property
<br /> 1'* ,9J to monitor and maintain the wells.
<br /> In response.:to the Governments IntErro
<br /> gatories., plaintiffs contacted 'State
<br /> of .California officials, and Scheduled depositions of EPA employees. For the
<br /> Government to make requests which wou id require plaintiffs in turn to seek
<br /> InfOrmation from the Government itself, and then to seek dismissal with
<br /> Judice when--plaintiffs faiied to supply theGovernment with the information.
<br /> that the Government already had., seems a cruel joke.
<br /> Whether. funny or not,, the government's requests clearly exceed the bounds for
<br /> wh1ch discovery is provided to litigants. See Reichert V. United States, �51
<br /> F,.R.D. 500, 503 (N.D. Cal. 19701 ; see generally 8 C. Wright & A. Miller., Federal
<br /> Practice and Procedure 9 2174 il H 070 & Supp. 195'1 ) . Plaintiffs' complainti;
<br /> imended twice, ,iput the Governient fully on notice of the actions about which
<br /> plaintiffs complained. Cf,.,., Ingalls Shipbuilding, Incl. United Statest 157
<br /> 1448., 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . To use discovery as: an alternative to its :own,
<br /> preparation of,�a defense or t' harass comes close to governmental abuse of the
<br /> judicial process. See Olmert i. Nelson, 60 F .R.D. 369, 370 (D.D.C. 1973);,
<br /> 1*501 Kainz v. Anheuser-Bus6h, Inc. , 15 F.R.D. 242,, 251 (N.D., 111. 19541 ; set
<br /> generally :8 C. I!Wrtqht & A. :Miller, supra, 5 2174. There is littlequestion that:
<br /> aidismissal: under kule- V based an these interrogatories was an abuse of
<br /> dtstretioln,.
<br /> InterrogatOries see inq4to establish economic impact
<br /> !A
<br /> :pressed f � : tTh# :Gov#enmnt repeated or more specific answers tohe
<br /> interrogatories propounded' :regardinq economic impact. A: kink at two of these
<br /> i,'ntgrrqgatories suggests the difficulty plaintiffs: faced in answering them.
<br /> it
<br /> What is :the factual: basisfor 1platMiffs' contention that EPA has interfered
<br /> ,with plaintiffs' legal ability to sell the Subject Property?
<br /> What is the factualbasis for ,the plaintiffs' contention that EPA.Aas interfered.with all intended deyelopmenti,of the Subject Property. What sneolfic plans had
<br /> bee4 made for such development's Then did plaintiffs 'intend tdcommen' ce :such
<br /> c,ommerclal and 'residential development? What specific barriers has
<br /> created that prevented Isicl the development of the land at this: time?
<br /> Appendix at 92-95.. Plalhitiffs !'responded to 126 In part that the combination
<br /> of EPA's physical occupation and .1*513 the Order made I'salz of the Subject..
<br /> Property to a knmtnq buyer impos5lb.le, as a know1,Pq, buyer wouldd nat know.:what
<br /> use could be made. Of thepropOrty. td.. Plaintiffs responded to. I 27�: In part ,
<br /> mw� 'dENN&
<br /> NE Is X15
<br /> L
<br />
|