Laserfiche WebLink
Services of Mead,Data Central, the <br /> PAGE Z0 <br /> ' 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30233, *48 <br /> "F?rdperty Owners have :;scheduled the degasitions of EPA employees to learnt about <br /> EPA 'activities on the .Subject property. <br /> Neither party has stggested1that some private individual surreptitiously <br /> entered onto plaintiffs' land to install the wells. Nor is there any suggestion <br /> that; plaintiffs themselves installed the wells. Thus, the wells must have been <br /> installed pursuant to 'Ithe EPA's order. The EPA, one gust assume, is aware'of <br /> what wells and support equipmetlt were installedy the methods by which the <br /> excavation occurred, and the extent of ongoing, ntrustan on plaintiffs' property <br /> C*491 to monitor and maintain the wells.; <br /> , . In response to the :Government's interragatortes, plaintiffs contacted State <br /> of California officials, and scheduled depositions of EPA employees. For the <br /> Government to hake requests which would require plaintiffs in turn to seek <br /> information from the Government itself, and then to seek dismissal with <br /> prejudice when plaintiffs failed to supply the Government with the information <br /> that the Government already had? seems a cruel ;joke. <br /> ►i <br /> iWhether funny or not, the Government's requests clearly exceed the bounds for <br /> which discovery is provided to'llitzgants. See Reichert v. United States, 51 <br /> F.R.D. 500, 593 (N.D, IlCal. 1170) ; see generally & C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal <br /> Practice and Procedure 6 2174 !.(100 & Supp. 1991 ) . Plaintiffs' complaint, <br /> amended twice, put- the Government fully on notice of the actions about which <br /> plaintiffs complained: C.f. Ingalls Shipbuil.dinq, Inc. v. United States, 857 <br /> f;2d 1448, 1452 {fed. ;[Cir. 19883 . To use discovery as an alternative to its own, <br /> preparation of a defense or to; harass comes close to governmental abuse of the <br /> judicial process. See101mert vi. Nelson, 60 F.R.D. 3,691 370 (D-D.C. 19733f <br /> i { 503 Kainz v, Anheuser-Busch, :Inc 15 F.R.D. Z421 251 (N.D. III. 1954) ; see <br /> gen0rally 8 C.. Wright�& A. Miller, supra, 9 2174. There s little question that <br /> a ,sdismissal. under Rule 37 based an these interrogatories was an abuse of <br /> discretion. <br /> i <br /> !' 'b. Interrogatories;_seekir3tl oto establish economic impact <br /> a <br /> The Government rg atedly pressed for more specific answers to the <br /> interrogatories propounded regardnq economic impact. A look at two of these <br /> t irtti, rrogatores suggests the difficulty plaintiffs faced in atiswering they. <br /> What is the `factual basis for Pliaintiffs' contention that EPA has i'iiterfered <br /> with plia-intiffs' 1=ega1 ability, to sell the Subject property? <br /> What is the factual besis forthe plaintiffs contention that.: EPA has interfered <br /> with all. intended development' f the Subject Property'? What specific plans had <br /> begirt Stade for such developmenfi. When d-id plaintiffs intend to commence such <br /> commercial and resrdentlal devtelopment? . . What specific barriers has EPS <br /> cleated that prevented Csicl the development of the. land :at this time? <br /> Appendix at 93-95. Pl. intiffs (,responded to 12dT in part,. that the combination <br /> of EPA's physlzal oceapation and C*511 the Orden trade "smile of the Subject <br /> Prooerty to a know".gf,huyer impossible, as a knowinq buyer would not know that <br /> use, could be made of the property." Id. Plaintiffs responded to 127',. n part:, <br /> t " EX0 <br /> � <br /> M JJr= <br /> N. EXIS'&LE . <br />