Laserfiche WebLink
Services at Mead Hata Central, lnc, '. 0 <br /> t <br /> PAGE 19 <br /> 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30233, x'46 <br /> dismiss is that "t:hey; have 'told all they know. '" Hendler II at 31 n.9. The <br />+. court concluded that the Government was clearly prejudiced its its ;defense' of the <br /> suit= "Defendant has ho means "of anticipating how plaintiffs will attempt' to <br /> prove that there is no economi;cal.ly viable use of their property. At sore' point <br /> in 'the proceeding, plaintiffs gust marshal facts which prove how the EPA <br /> activities have deprived them 'of an economically viable use of their property." <br /> Hendler II at 32 ('emphasis in ioriginal) <br /> As a general rule,,; trial courts are given wide discretion to manage the <br /> course of a trial, and to dirt the conduct of counsel. But this discretion ;is <br /> I riaot'without Limits. W# "review the 'trial court's dismissal decision for an, abuse <br /> of discretion. Nati Hockey i.eague v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427' U.S. 6397 <br /> 642` (1976) ; Adkins v.[United States, 816 F.Zd 15811, 1581-82 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . Ari <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 on an erroneous <br /> conclusion of the law' 131 the court's findings are clearly erroneous; or. (41 <br /> the. record contains 1I*471 no evidence upon which the court rationally .could <br /> have based its €recision. Western Elec. Co. Inc. Y. Piezo Technology;, Inc.' 860 <br /> F.`,Zd 428, 429-30 (Fed.. Cir. 19881 . <br /> i <br /> ti <br /> 1 , The Interrogatories <br /> ='the interrogatories at issue are nine in number. They. break down into ktrao <br /> g)gherai categories; 0 ) intercogatories concerning the, Government's own <br /> activities, and (2I iihterrogatories seeking to establish economic impact:.; <br /> A. Interrogatoriesicancerning the Government's. own activities <br /> { Interrogatories 8, 13, 14, Wand 16-18 deal with the particulars of then <br /> Govp-rnment's activities on the plaintiffs' properties. The Government's argument <br /> is that Hendler has simply chosen to be ,J uncooperative in responding to its <br /> interrcigatories and s. pplying,1the evidence to enable- the court to determine if a <br /> taking d;id Occur, and' if to what would be just compensation. Interrogatories 13 <br /> j and:- 17 are illustrative. zt <br /> t <br /> . . 13: <br /> What is the factual bAsis forliplalntiffs' contention that EPA has taken <br /> plaintiffs' property ;by drritit3 heavy machinery, trucks, and other vehicles ont€i <br /> the.. Subject. Property?; <br /> wha is the factual basis f0tJplaintiffs' contention that SPA has taken <br /> plaintiffs' propei`ty gY 148] detotlating explosives on the Subject Propert`yT <br /> Appendix at 76, 87. <br /> a 3f the nuestiorts are intended to ask, when and how often d%d the Government <br /> aa� <br /> driVe hea'heavychineryi and Beta'nate explosives on plaintiffs' property v itis <br /> hartl to know what more plaintiffs should have said. Plaintiffs ' final answer to. <br /> fnterragatory 13, for example listed the exact parcels an which the driving <br /> occurred, Listed driv1ng�-related activities such as "monitoring wells,": and <br /> stated that they did 'not knowlifor certain which driving was EPA's and Which was <br /> Cal4fornia's, but. that ;discovery was: continuing. Plaintiffs then added that, <br />