SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Case 2:07-cv-00660-00-EFB Document 50 Filed 00. /2008 Page 4 of 5 1 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)). 2 Defendants have not made that showing on the present motions. Accordingly,plaintiff's 3 motion to compel responses to the interrogatories is granted. Defendants shall provide verified 4 responses to each of the interrogatories, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b),within ten days 5 from the date of service of this order. 6 Many of defendants' objections to the request to inspect the Ranch also hinge on 7 plaintiff's refusal to agree to a blank confidentiality order. Again, defendants are not entitled to 8 such an order. Although the parties have resolved many of the disputes regarding the inspection, 9 two primary issues remain. First, the parties dispute the number of borings plaintiff's team of 10 experts will be allowed to make. Defendants assert that plaintiff can accomplish his testing with I I a single boring,but plaintiff has expert has opined that at least seventeen are necessary to gather 12 the evidence sought by this request. See Declaration of Victor Fisher in Support of Coldani's 13 Motion("Fisher Decl."),IT 6, 7. Defendants' contrary position is predicated on the theory that a 14 single boring will reveal the presence or absence of nitrates in the groundwater. However, as set 15 forth above,plaintiff does not just wish only to establish the presence of nitrates, but also to link 16 the alleged contamination to Lima Ranch and information about movement and location of 17 contaminates is needed. More than one boring is required to gather such evidence. See id. 18 Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff s motion, and orders that he be permitted to make 19 seventeen borings on defendants' property. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the 20 location of these borings. 21 Second, defendants again assert that plaintiff and his team of experts must sign the 22 proposed confidentiality agreement before entering Lima Ranch. As discussed, defendants are 23 not entitled to a blanket protective order. Plaintiff and his experts have agreed that they will not 24 disclose to any third parties any ranching operations they observe that may be construed as 25 "confidential, proprietary information." In particular,plaintiff and his agents have agreed not to 26 reveal to third parties the types of antibiotics, supplements, and hormones provided to Lima 4