Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

EXHIBIT A

Exhibit A

The Royal Oaks Concerned Citizens Association, James Hardy, Curtis McMillian and Dennis McMillian v. Brunswick County; and Mark Hardy v. Brunswick County

Brunswick County's Responses to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests

05126111; 36 pages of documents were produced to plaintiffs via email in response to a public 06/02111 records request, responsive to RFPD # 1

10/25111 On 6/3/11, Plaintiff served Defendant with 22 interrogatories with 20 subparts; 28 requests for production with 21 subparts and 24 requests for admissions.

On October 25,2011 Defendant Brunswick County Responded to Plaintiffs' First Request for Interrogatories, First Requests for Production of Documents, and First Requests for Admissions. Contained 4,704 pages

10126/11 By Julie Bradburn's letter to Attorney Haddix, defendant provided five CDs of documents including as-built surveys, and hard copies of infrastructure maps

01110112 On this date by letter from Attorney Bradburn to Attorney Haddix, defendant provided additional documents responsive to RFPDs 1,22 and 25 and containing 56 pages

01/13112 Three days later, Defendant supplemented its document production by letter, providing Waste Water Treatment Documents that had been inspected by plaintiffs and which were responsive to RFPD 2 and Rogg 17, and containing 421 pages

05/08112 Defendant Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' Revised First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents served on this date provided CDBG applications responsive to Rogg 6 and RFPDs 16 and 24 and included 897 pages

05114112 Defendant's Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' First Requests for Production of Documents was produced on CD, was responsive to RFPDs 10, 18, 25 and 26, and contained 727 pages

07/31112 Brunswick County's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents, provided 4 pages of documents responsive to RFPDs 16 and 24

08/23112 An enlarged, color copy of a specific map requested by plaintiffs' counsel on 8121112 was provided

09/04112 Defendant Brunswick County's Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' Revised First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents responded to RFPDs 12 and revised 25 and produced 894 pages

10/12112 In the case of Mark Hardy v. Brunswick County, the County was served with 14 interrogatories, 7 requests for production, and 13 requests for admissions and responded with the production of additional documents and information

1 WCSR 7635394vl

11121112 By letter from Ms. Bradburn to Ms. Haddix, 2 CDs with audio minutes were provided

11/21112 Defendant Brunswick County's Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Requests for Production of Documents and Second Requests for Admissions addressed the additional 29 requests for production and 12 requests for admissions served by plaintiffs. Specifically, as to RFPDs 30, 31, 33-36,40,42,44 and 58 - 1,104 pages of documents were produced

12/07112 Defendant Brunswick County's Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Second Requests for Production of Documents and Second Requests for Admissions provided 367 pages of documents responsive to RFPDs 45, 46, and 47

12/07/12 By letter to Ms. Haddix, additional documents requested in her letters of 11127112 and 11/30112, an additional 43 pages were produced responsive to RFPD 1

12/07/12 Defendant's Supplemental Answers to Mark Hardy's First Set ofInterrogatories produced 50 pages of documents responsive to Interrogatory 12

12/31112 14 CDs of the audio recording for the March 18-19, 2009 Board Retreat as well as hard copy of the minutes were provided to plaintiffs by Ms. Hughes' letter

01/09/13 Defendant Brunswick County's Responses to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests Contained Within the 12110/12 Letter provided 120 pages of documents responsive to RFPD 2,58 and revised 25

01118/13 891 pages were produced with Defendant Brunswick County's Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents and Supplemental Responses to Mark Hardy Discovery Requests, being responsive to RFPD 37, 43,54-56.

01129/13 928 pages of documents were produced in response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents and Supplemental Responses to Mark Hardy Discovery Requests.

2 WCSR 7635394vl

EXHIBIT B

WOMBLE

CARLYLE

SANDRIDGE

& RICE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED

LIABILITY COMPANY

VIA EMAIL

150 Fayetteville Street Suite 2100 Raleigh. NC 27601

Post Office Box 831

Raleigh. NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 755-2100 Fax: (919) 755-2150 W'W'w.wcsr.com

September 27,2011

Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix, Esquire UNC Center for Civil Rights 101 East Weaver Street Campus Box 3382 Chapel Hill, NC 27510

Julie B. Bradburn Direct Dial: (919) 755-2169 Direct Fax: (919) 755-6187

E-mail: [email protected]

Re: The Royal Oak Concerned Citizens Association, et aL, v. Brunswick County File No.: 11 CVS 1301

Dear Elizabeth:

Good afternoon. I have now had the opportunity to review your letter of last Wednesday, September 21,2011, setting forth Plaintiffs' summarization of the numerous discussions between counsel regarding discovery in this case. Let me echo your sentiments and thank you and Ray for the time spent trying to resolve these issues and in considering our positions.

Before addressing specifics in the letter, let me address your email of September 22, 2011. Please note that I anticipated receiving the summary letter last Monday, in which event we could have responded prior to today. While we are devoting significant time to this case, I had previously scheduled client obligations the latter part of last week that I could not cancel in order to respond to the letter, which was lengthy and summarizes hours of discussion. It has indeed taken me some time to review and respond to the letter.

In short, we believe we are entitled to extend Plaintiffs' proposed October 19, 2011 deadline (the origin of which is unclear) by the additional days needed to review and respond to your letter. We therefore suggested October 25, 2011. In the event the information is pulled together prior to then, we will gladly provide it andlor arrange a time for counsel to inspect responsive materials. We are, and have been, reasonable in our efforts to reach an agreement with Plaintiffs on the issue of discovery. The statement in your email that we would have 4.5 months to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery omits the critical facts that: (1) we do not believe discovery is at all proper and set forth that position in our first filings; and (2) the requests were so objectionable as originally drafted that Defendant had no meaningful way to respond to them. I would note further that Plaintiffs' amended complaint was served on August 3, 2011 and there is the valid argument that this reset the clock on all discovery-a position we did not take in order to keep the litigation moving forward. Finally, while Plaintiffs have declined to send a set

GEORGIA I SOUTH CAROLINA I NORTH CAROLINA I VIRGINIA I WASHINGTON D.C. I MARYLAND I DELAWARE

WOMBLE" CARLYLE ,..

SANDRIDGE & RICE

PLLe

Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix, Esq. September 27,2011

Page 2

of revised requests, the requests are in fact substantially revised following our discussions. We are only now reaching the point where we can accurately guide our client in responding to Plaintiffs' discovery requests.

In any event, we are talking about six (6) days difference in our proposed deadlines. If your clients believe this difference warrants a motion to compel, as implied in your email, I hope that cooler heads will prevail. It would be unfortunate for our talks to end here and the parties move back to square one. Regarding your letter, we will respond to the specifics contained therein as follows:

INITIAL MA TIERS

We agree to disagree on whether discovery is proper as to the zoning/landfill issue. As you know, your clients seek to challenge the rezoning of the property adjacent to the existing landfill. It is our position that disputes regarding zoning decisions are reviewed on the record from which the zoning decision was made-not discovery. Moreover, the special exception permit required to expand the landfill has not been granted. While it is clear that Plaintiffs want to prevent an expansion of the landfill, the only ripe issue as it pertains to this lawsuit concerns the question of rezoning.

You state on the top of page 2 that Defendant conceded that discovery was proper on the discrimination claims. This statement is not accurate, as we do not concede that discovery is proper at all in this case. Due to several considerations, however, we agreed to initial, reasonable discovery on what Plaintiffs are claiming relate to their discrimination allegations.

To this end, during our discussions I relayed to you our concern over Plaintiffs' limited ability to articulate what they are seeking through discovery; a point which supports our legal contention that this is solely a zoning case, but also deserves some elaboration here. I think I speak fairly for all involved when saying that allegations of discrimination are serious and evoke emotions from individuals and communities alike. In such case, and where significant government resources are being demanded in compiling information, it is important that the allegations are well-founded and the discovery reasonably targeted to support those allegations. While we agree with the general principle that the rules allow comprehensive discovery, we have continuing concerns with the burdensome and unfocused nature of the discovery requests. We asked you during our talks to engage in a candid discussion of the specific details supporting this lawsuit of which we may not be aware; something which might help illuminate the discovery Plaintiffs are seeking and the important issues at large, but that you were not willing to do at this juncture. While this position is not necessarily unusual, we encourage you to rethink this approach so that the case can be as stream-lined as possible and evaluated thoroughly by all counsel.

WOMBLE"

CARLYLE " SANDRIDGE

& RICE PLLe


Page 3

Ultimately, our overarching agreement regarding the discovery pertaining to water/sewer issues is to provide Plaintiffs with information pertinent to when and where infrastructure was placed within the county, and the source of the infrastructure. From this point, Plaintiffs can hopefully refine what it is they are seeking in discovery and what, if any, additional information they reasonably believe is necessary and justified within the parameters of the discovery rules.

Note further that the phrase "We will provide a response" does not mean that the information Plaintiffs are seeking exists in the form they have requested, if at all. It means simply that we will address the inquiry posed or intended through the discovery request as refined during our discussions. While I do not want this to be a sticking point for us, for reasons I do not completely understand Plaintiffs will not submit revised written requests. As a result, we have to respond in large part to what we believe Plaintiffs meant following our discussions with counsel. Because our discussions were over the telephone, it is of course possible that we have recalled something incorrectly or reached a different understanding on a particular issue. If that appears to be the case, please let us know and we can revisit any of the specific requests. I have noted where we believe further discussion is necessary.

Finally, our understanding is that each request is limited to the previous 10 years unless otherwise agreed.

INTERROGATORIES

1. Interrogatory #1: We had a fairly extensive exchange about this, where we agreed to provide you with a response, but one that will necessarily reflect the fact that the overwhelming majority of allegations in the complaint are denied and/or do not contain factual allegations. If I recall correctly, you agreed that information provided in response to other requests would likely provide what Plaintiffs intended to request through this interro gatory.

2. Interrogatory #4: We will provide a response.

3. Interrogatory # 5: We will provide a response.

4. Interrogatory #6: We do not recall this being the agreement, but rather what Plaintiff defined the request to mean when pressed for interpretation. We did not make any specific representations of "what the county already had" in terms of maps or otherwise-please clarify if it appeared otherwise. We agreed to provide information pertinent to when and where infrastructure was placed within the county, and the source of the infrastructure; which in and of itself is a large undertaking. I do not know whether we can reasonably ascertain the number of properties connected following each installation, but again, I think this interrogatory is one that can be revisited after Defendant's initial responses if Plaintiffs reasonably believe there is additional information outstanding that warrants production.

WOMBLE"

CARlYlE " SANDRIDGE

& RICE PLLC


Page 4

5. Interrogatory #7: We will not split hairs regarding the complete context of the discussion and selective quotations of counsel, but we agreed to provide initial information addressing what Plaintiffs appear to seek here.

6. Interrogatory #8: We will provide a response.

7. Interrogatory #9: The quotation of counsel is out of context and represents only part of our discussion. What we did agree to seek was information available regarding documentation of any prior discrimination claims for the past 10 years. During this discussion, we relayed that an oral complaint is a non-descript term and asked for clarification. Your response, and what you appear to reference in your letter, is the existence of a "human rights commission or department" that you have seen in other governmental entities that accepts oral complaints.

8. Interrogatory 10: We will provide a response as we understand the inquiry. Part of our large discussion was the concern that Plaintiffs may be looking for very specific information they believe exists, but are not directly requesting. Given the nature of Plaintiffs' allegations and the broad nature of their requests, we asked, and ask again here, that Plaintiffs make direct requests for any particularized information they believe exists so that we can attempt to locate and produce it.

9. Interrogatory 11: This request evidently was intended to refer to a bond referendum in the 1980's, although it does not directly state this. We objected to the breadth of the request, and have not waived the objection, but will provide a response as we understand the inquiry. As with any request Plaintiffs have made going back several decades, we do not know that/what information regarding the bond referendum remains available.

10. Interrogatory 12: We agreed to provide a response.

11. Interrogatory 13: We agree with the statement as to our position. We note here that throughout all of our discussions, we emphasized that the rules limit Plaintiffs to 50 interrogatories and we did not intend to waive this position.

12. Interrogatory 14: We recall our discussion being broader than the letter suggests and we should revisit this issue for clarification. However, we are providing the names of former commissioners and the individual will be the best source of his or her ethnicity/race.

13. Interrogatory 16: We will provide a response.

14. Interrogatory 17: We will provide a response.

WOMBLE" CARLYLE P'"

SANDRIDGE & RICE

PLLC


Page 5

REQUESTS FOR PRQDUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

15. RPD 1: We agreed to respond, but subject to our discussion regarding parallel Interrogatory # 1, and to your clarification that Plaintiffs are primarily looking for documents that Defendant may ultimately use to support its case. Our response will necessarily reflect the early stages of the litigation. If you recall this differently please let us know. As with any case, we cannot be expected to decide at this juncture which documents we will use at summary judgment or any other proceedings.

16. RPD 2: We agreed to provide a response.

17. RPD 4: My recollection is that Plaintiffs refmed this request to ask for tax values of properties in the area they define as Royal Oak over the past 10 years. We will discuss the request for tax values with our client and determine the best way to make this information accessible. If there is more refined information Plaintiffs are seeking, let's revisit this request. Our concern here is that the request as drafted provided almost no guidance to Defendant in responding, and is unduly burdensome absent further clarification that connects the request to the allegations in the complaint. Note that we are agreeing to provide an initial response because the tax information is public record.

18. RPD 5: Your statement is accurate, although I reiterate our position that the landfill expansion issue is not ripe. We will provide a response as the records are public, but our production is not to be viewed as a waiver of our position regarding the landfill.


20. RPD 8: We agreed to provide a response, subject to the discussion regarding the parallel interrogatory.

21. RPD 9: This request is particularly vague and our discussion as I recall did little to refine what Plaintiffs are seeking. We will provide a response to the extent we understand the inquiry. If I am forgetting a specific point of discussion, please let me know.


23. RPD 11: See paragraph 21, above.




WOMBLE'" CARLnE

SANDRIDGE Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix, Esq.

& RICE PLLC

September 27,2011 Page 6

27. RPD 15: This request is parallel to Interrogatory 6 and/or 7, I believe, as opposed to 8. See paragraphs 5 and 6, above. Ifwe need to discuss further let us know.

28. RPD 16: Let's revisit this request as my recollection differs from yours.

29. RPD 17: We relayed that this request in essence asks Defendant to prove a negative. My recollection is that the intent of the request was to locate documents that Defendant intends to use in defense of the lawsuit. To this end, see paragraph 16 above.


31. RPD 19: We agree this request was withdrawn.

32. RPD 21: Plaintiff agreed Defendant will not be providing responsive information for the time being.

33. RPD 22: We will respond in accordance with our answer to Interrogatory 6.

34. RPD 23: Following our discussion we remain unclear as to what Plaintiffs are seeking in this request, but will attempt a response. Any further guidance from Plaintiffs is welcome.

35. RPD 24: We agreed that Defendant will not respond to this request.

36. Second RPD 24: We agreed to provide a response.

37. RPD 25: We relayed that the use of the term "role" gave us limited guidance regarding the information Plaintiffs are seeking through the request. We agreed to provide a response to the extent we understand the request. Feel free to send additional guidance or to let me know if I am recalling the discussion inaccurately.



40. RPD 28: See paragraph 16. We do not know at this juncture what documents we may introduce at any trial and such analysis will be on-going as the litigation proceeds. We do however understand the spirit of the request and will disclose responsive information in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

WOMBLE'" CARLYLE

SANDRIDGE & RICE

PLLC

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix, Esq. September 27, 2011

Page 7

41. We will respond to those Requests for Admission that do not pertain to zoning and/or landfill issues. As with the other similar requests, we agree to disagree at this point as to whether discovery is proper as to this subject.

COMMUNICATIONS WITH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

I appreciate your letter setting forth your position on the rules regarding communications with represented parties. It is not our intention to assert wrongdoing on the part of counsel, but to ensure that any future contacts are within the confines of the rules. Rule 4.2 applies to elected officials, and even in such context, requires that the communication be in writing, through advance notice or made at a proceeding. Helen Bunch is not an elected official and the communications were via telephone. That the matters discussed orally with Ms. Bunch concerned matters of public record regarding the landfill expansion, as suggested, does not seem dispositive of the issue. Rather, the pertinent inquiry is whether the matter relates to "the subject of the litigation." We agree that the expansion of the landfill is not ripe and thus should not be a subject matter of the litigation and that this is a rezoning case. However, Plaintiffs' position as articulated through discovery discussions is quite clearly to the contrary. Based on Plaintiffs' position, discussions with Ms. Bunch or other officials relating to expansion of the landfill appear to fall very near, ifnot within, Rule 4.2's prohibitions.

To avoid future issues, it seems the most prudent way to proceed is for Plaintiffs' counsel to address specific inquiries to defense counselor the county attorney's office instead of calling an official/employee directly; or, at a minimum, provide counsel notice of the communications and an opportunity to participate if the communication is one which potentially implicates Rule 4.2. As you know, your clients are not subject to the rule and its constraints.

Please let us know when you are available to clear up the remaining discrepancies regarding the discovery requests. I would suggest including both Ray and Mike on this call so that we are all on board going forward. I again thank you for your time in working on these issues.

With best regards,

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE A Professional Limited Liability Company

9~ Julie B. Bradburn

WOMBLE'" CARLYLE

SANDRIDGE & RICE

PLLC

JBB/jkh cc: Peter Gilbert, Esq.

Raymond E. Owens, Jr., Esq. James R. Morgan, Esq. Michael C. Thelen, Esq.


Page 8

EXHIBIT C

STATE OF NORTII CAROLIN}lf 'L ED COUNTY OF BRUNSWICffJlZ APR 24 PH 2: 07

IN mE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

II-CVS-1301

THE ROYAL OAK CONC.g~~'Bcr; t:OlJt~1 y C.S.C CITIZENS ASSOCIATION lAMEs ~ HARDY, CURTIS MCMILffA:N-Wld

DENNIS MCMILLIAN, ) ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS Plaintiffs, )

v.

BRUNSWICK COUNTY,

) ) ) ) ) )

Defendant.

THIS MArrER came before the Court upon the parties' cross-motions to compel

discovery. The Court has reviewed the materials and authorities submitted by the parties and

considered the arguments of counsel, and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiffs shall provide supplemental responses to the following Interrogatories

and Requests for Production of Doc1l1llents:

• Interrogatory Nos. 2~ 5, 6, 7, 8, 10

RPD Nos. 3,10,13.17,18,21

2. The parties have reached an agreement on Plaintiffs' Interrogatory 6, RPDs 14

and 16 and Defendant will supplement their responses to these requests.

the Court does not compel production of the materials referenced in oral argument to Plaintiffs at

3, Interrogatory No. 9 and corresponding RPD 18 (complaints of discrimination):

the Defendant shall provide the CoUrt a copy of the documents to be reviewed,

this time, but has agreed to conduct an in camera review of the same. Upon entry of this order,

4. As to any other materials produced in response to Interrogatory No. 9 and RPD

18, the parties acknowledge that infonnation relating to fanner and current employees is

confidential under N.C.O.S. § lS3A-98. Plaintiffs consent to an order protecting the

confidentiality of this information. It is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs, including their counsel and

agents, shall Dot disclose this infonnation to third parties absent further order of this Court.

5. Plaintiffs' request to compel Defendant's responses to Requests for Admission 5,

7, 11, 18, 19 and 20 is denied.

6. Plaintiffs' request to compel responses to Intem>ptories 13 and 19 is denied.

7. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their request for fees and costs associated with their

motion.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall provide infonnation

responsive to the discovery requests as set forth above within 14 days of the date of this order.

This the 2.(') ~ ~y of April, 2012.

2

EXHIBIT D

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA F i L t. DlNTHEOENBRAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COtJRT OMSlON

COUNTYOFBRUNSWrCT< 'LOI1JUK~l f"~; 32 ll-CVS.1301

. .{;:UHaWICK cOUNTY. C,S.C.

THRR,OYAL OAK CONCERNED ) CITIZENS ASSOCIATlON~ JAMi~~ HARDY, CURTIS MCMILLIAN and ) DENN1.S MCMILLIAN, ) PROPOSED ORDER

WITlllilNDlNGS OF FACT Plaintiffs,

v.

BRUNSWICK COWrY,

Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) )

This Court having considered the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compelj and after considering the

Defendant's Opposition to said motion; and ha.ving considered the oral arguments made at the

hearing on Ap.dl 16, 2012, this Court d~fe~ Plaintiffs' Motion to Compol WId fmds that the

requests at issue only r~late to Plaintiff's' challenge to the County's legislative decision to rezone

certain property owned by tile CoUnty. The Court further finds that the Plaintiffs' disCOVClty

requests seek infonnation outside of and beyond the infonnation contained in the whole record

that wars before the Board of ConunisslOHers when makina its legislative decision to rezone the

proport~ in question, and are therefore Inappropriate under North Carolina law.

SO ORDERED, this the -.3a day of tAt:...y .2012.

~~t3~ HON LE SUPERIOR COURT .rtJDOE JAMB GREGORY BELL BRUNSWICK COUNTY. NORTH CAR.OLINA

wasil 726119Bv2

I I

I ! 1-.I I

i

I I ~

r r I I

j

1-.

I I

EXHIBIT E

COUNTYOF~R \ \ . I";' '\ :~~ ?~~\?

THE ROY AL O~K CONCE:I\NE~.. . I\IfI CITIZENS ASS qt\1l\>~~¥t'~'._~-:::-)\ MCMILLIAN an ttf~~:';:';;1:1<ii;:~': .. ~~~:"j'" MCMILLIAN, \~.\·~e:;<:·~~··· " )

Plaintiffs,

'l.

BRUNSWICK COUNTY,

Defendant.

) )

) )

)

)

)

)

IN TIIE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

ll-CVS-1301

STIPULATION

On June 7, 2012, Superior Court Judge Gregory Bell entered an amended Order denying Plaintiffs certain discovery on the grounds that the discovery requests in question related only to Plaintiffs' challenge to the County's legislative decision to rezone certain property owned by the County.

Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal of this order which is pending at the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The appeal is based on Plaintiffs' concern that Judge Bell's Order may prevent Plaintiffs from seeking certain discovery that they deem pertinent to their claims under the North Carolina Fair Housing Act.

Plaintiffs propose to withdraw their appeal upon agreement from Defendant as to certain discovery that Plaintiffs may request in the future. Plaintiffs contend that the whole record test does not apply to the rezoning decision in issue, and Defendant contends that Judge Bell's order speaks for itself on this issue and that the whole record test is applicable to the rezoning decision. With this Stipulation, the parties waive no claims, defenses, or objections with respect to their legal positions regarding the applicability of the whole record test. However, in order to avoid the cost, time and reSOurces associated with pursuing and defending against Plaintiffs' appeal, the parties agree as follows:

1. Subject to the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery, for Plaintiffs' purposes of prosecuting their claims under the North Carolina Fair Housing Act only, Defendant agrees to answer in good faith appropriately tailored discovery requests regarding the areas identified below, but Defendant does not agree that Mark Hardy is entitled to serve additional interrogatories, and this stipulation does not purport to address that issue.

a. The decision-making process related to the decision to rezone the two parcels in question;

. b. The sequence of events leading up to and directly related to the decision to rezone the two parcels;

c. Information regarding the County's processes and procedures when rezoning a parcel ofIand;

d. Information discoverable under Rule 26, regarding the County's processes and procedures concerning the location of the County animal shelter, waste water treatment plants, spray fields, County permitted sand mines, and solid waste facilities, only to the extent that the County had control over the location of these facilities and to the extent that this infonnation is still available.

2. Plaintiffs agree that the above does not constitute a waiver or limitation of any defense available to Defendant in this case. Defendant does not agree, and the above should not be construed as a concession by Defendant that the North Carolina Fair Housing Act applies to Defendant, to Plaintiffs' allegations in this case, or that a particular test, method or type of proof should be accepted by North Carolina courts when interpreting the state's Fair Housing Act.

3. This agreement applies to discovery requested or otherwise sought by Plaintiffs following execution of this agreement and going forward. This agreement does not require Defendant to serve Plaintiffs with revised or supplemental discovery responses or allow Plaintiffs to serve Defendant with additional interrogatories beyond the number permitted under Rule 33.

4. Subject to the terms in Paragraph 1, the above stipulations apply in the lawsuit filed by Mark Hardy against Brunswick County, case number 12-CVS-I138, which is based on the same operative facts as the present litigation, whether or not the cases are consolidated.

5. This agreement is not a representation by Defendant that information responsive to future discovery requests from Plaintiffs exists and/or will be produced in a particular format or through the testimony of certain persons. Defendant expressly reserves the right to assert all privileges and appropriate objections available to it under the law.

··D~ This is thJ_ day of October, 2012

AGREED TO:

UNC CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

By: t:&:r.ktL ~ j(l./I)j;). Elizabeth Ha dlx, NCSB No. 258187 Bethan Eynon, NCSB No. 44327 Campus Box 3382 Carrboro, NC 27599-3382

HIGGINS & OWENS, PLLC Raymond E. Owens, Jr. 5925 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 530 Charlotte, NC 28209

FAIR HOUSING PROJECT, LEGAL AID OF NC Jack Holtzman P. O. Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ayetteviIIe Street, Suite 2100 . O. Box 831, Raleigh, NC 27602

Attorneys for Defendant Brunswick County

EXHIBIT F

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

12-CvS-1138 COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK

MARK HARDY

Plaintiff,

v.

BRUNSWICK COUNTY,

Defendant.

) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF

INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS, AND FIRST REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSIONS

Defendant, Brunswick County ("County"), hereby responds to Plaintiff's First Set of

Discovery as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

The County objects to Plaintiff's discovery demands, including Plaintiff's Definitions, to

the extent they seek to impose upon the County a duty of disclosure or other obligation not

required by the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. The County objects to Plaintiffs "Definitions" as said definitions are overbroad,

seek information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and

seeks information protected by the attorney client and work product privileges.

3. The County objects to Plaintiff's discovery demands to the extent it pertains to:

residences and issues other than those pertaining to Mark Hardy.

4. The County objects to Plaintiff's discovery demands to the extent that it calls for

information potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney-work product

doctrine, information protected from disclosure by testimonial or legislative immunity,

WCSR 7510133v2

confidential or proprietary business information, trade secret information or any other applicable

privileges. By responding to these Interrogatories, the County does not waive any privilege.

S. The County objects to Plaintiffs' discovery to the extent it seeks disclosure of

information, documents or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, which are

outside the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 26.

6. The County objects to Plaintiffs definitions on the grounds that the definitions

and instructions are overly broad and burdensome including Plaintiffs definitions of

"document," "communication," "person," "Brunswick," and "County." The County further

objects to Plaintiffs definitions on the grounds that the definitions seek to impose an obligation

on the County to respond on behalf of persons or entities that are not parties to this litigation and

are not subject to discovery as a party.

7. To the extent this Plaintiffs discovery demands seek information and/or

production of materials that are described with reasonable specificity, the County will attempt to

identify and/or produce such specific responsive information and documents.

8. The County objects to the service of additional interrogatories by the Plaintiff

Mark Hardy, since the instant matter is the subject of a pending motion to consolidate with the

corresponding matter Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County, and as such, the

Plaintiffs have exceeded their allotted interrogatories.

9. The County objects to any interrogatories, requests for production or requests to

admit which Judge Bell already ruled that the County need not respond to in the corresponding

Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter.

10. The County reserves the right to supplement its responses to Plaintiffs discovery

demands as additional information or documents become known.

- 2-WCSR 75I0133v2

11. The County incorporates its General Response and Objections by reference as

though fully set forth in response to each and every discovery demand served by Plaintiff. By

setting forth specific objections to any particular Interrogatory, the County does not intend to

limit the General Objections set forth above.

INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No.1:

Identify any and all individuals possessing any infonnation or knowledge concerning

Mark Hardy's requests for water and/or sewer services at his Smith Road house, as alleged in

paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Complaint. To the extent that there are documents or other

records which pertain or relate to your Answer, please identify those documents or records.

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. Without waiving its objections, the County states that it is not aware of any formal petitions filed on behalf of Mark Hardy seeking to have water and sewer lines run out to his home. The County further states that the Department of Utilities routinely receives requests regarding water and sewer availability and the Department would have advised the resident to pursue a special assessment petition and to send a letter to the County Commissioners, the Chair of the Board of the County Commissioners or to the County Manager. The County further states that Eric Hill recalls speaking with Mr. Hardy, and testing the well at the Smith Road house, but recalls the final testing having a negative result for bacteria and does not recall speaking with Mr. Hardy about water and/or sewer service.

Interrogatory No.2:

To the extent you disagree with or otherwise contest any part of the allegations in paragraphs 115

and 116 of the Complaint, please describe in detail the reasons for your disagreement. To the

extent that there are documents or other records which pertain or relate to your Answer, please

identify those documents or records.

- 3 -WCSR 7510133v2

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. Without waiving its objections, the County states that it is not reasonable to provide an individual lot owner with a cost estimate for the installation of County water and sewer lines, since the cost of installing same would be close to $500,000 for the one lot. The County also refers plaintiff to its response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.

Interrogatory No.3:

Identify all alternatives to a landfill for disposing of municipal waste generated within

Brunswick County, and/or disposal of construction and demolition (C&D) materials that are

generated within Brunswick County, considered by Defendant as of the date of your responses to

these Interrogatories. To the extent that there are documents or other records which pertain or

relate to your Answer, please identify those documents or records.

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. The County further objects to the term "municipal waste" which is not defmed and therefore renders this interrogatory vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objections, the County states that currently, its solid waste is shipped off site via tractor trailers to Sampson County for disposal. The County has explored a number of options to handle the excess Construction and Debris ("C&D") waste including building a transfer station for the C&D waste and shipping waste out of the County. The County has also explored other alternatives to a landfill for C&D, such as transportation out of the County, incineration, gasification, and a variety of recycling options.

Interrogatory No.4:

-4-WCSR 7510133v2

If you contend that the County has not had responsibility or authority to provide

Plaintiff public water or sewer services at any time since at least 2000 through the present, state

each and every reason in support of your contention, identify the non-County entity or entities

that were responsible for or authorized to provide Plaintiff with public water services, and

identify any individuals possessing knowledge or infonnation relating to this contention. To the

extent that there are documents or other records which pertain or relate to your Answer, please

identify those documents or records.

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. The County further objects to this Interrogatory which is a contention interrogatory and argumentative. Without waiving its objections, the County does not contend that it did not have "authority," as the County understands the term to provide public water and sewer services. The County further states that it is not required to provide County water and sewer to every resident of Brunswick County. The County further states that the majority of water and sewer main extensions constructed within the last 10 years found within the County were provided by developers to serve their individual communities. The Plaintiff is also referred to the County's response to revised Interrogatory No.4 in the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter.

Interrogatory No.5:

Describe in detail any and all meetings, written or oral agreements, contracts or any other

interaction involving the County, related to the provision of public water or sewer services by the

County to Mark Hardy, the Royal Oak Community or any of its residents. To the extent that

there are documents or other records which pertain or relate to your Answer, please identify

those documents or records.

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of

- 5 -WCSR 7510133v2

interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. The County further objects to this Interrogatory which is vague in that the Plaintiff has refused to provide the identity of the members of the Royal Oak community and therefore the County cannot provide a proper response. The County further objects to the term "any other interaction" which is vague and undefined. Without waiving its objections, the County states that it is not aware of any "written or oral agreements, or contracts" having anything to do with the provision of water and sewer to Mark Hardy. With respect to Plaintiff's requests regarding any meetings between the County and Mark Hardy (or his father, James), the Head of the Department of Utilities recalls only that the issue was raised at a meeting discussing the possible landfill expansion. The County does not recall any specific requests for a meeting by Mark Hardy other than what was identified in response to Interrogatory No.1 above.

Interrogatory No.6:

Identify any expert that you intend to call in the trial of this case. For each expert provide the

area in which the expert will testify.

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. Without waiving its objections, the County states that it has not yet decided which experts it will call at the time of trial, and the County reserves its right to supplement this request as discovery proceeds herein.

Interrogatory No.7: To the extent that any of your responses to Plaintiffs' First Requests for

Admissions are anything other than an unequivocal admission, provide a detailed description of

the reason or basis for your response. To the extent that there are documents or other records

which pertain or relate to your Answer, please identify those documents or records.

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. The

- 6-WCSR 7510133v2

County further objects to this Interrogatory since Judge Bell already ruled on April 24, 2012 that the County did not need to respond to this Interrogatory.

Interrogatory No.8:

Describe in detail all of Defendant's reasons for citing the West Brunswick Regional Waste

Water Treatment Plant in its current location. Your answer should identify any and all site

evaluation studies, reports, inquiries, investigations or surveys which pertain or relate to Plant.

To the extent that there are documents or other records which pertain or relate to your Answer,

please identify those documents or records.

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. The County further objects to this Interrogatory in that the term "citing" is not defined and renders this interrogatory vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objections, the County states that the County, through HDR Engineering, conducted a 201 Facilities Plan for the West Brunswick Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Included in the 201 Facilities Plan was an alternatives analysis and environmental assessment. After completion of the 201 Facilities Plan and understanding the quantity of land required to implement the recommended alternative, the County evaluated the available land which met the size requirements. The County subsequently purchased that land from International Paper Company.

Interrogatory No.9:

Describe in detail any and all communications with staff persons and/or officials from the

North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, the North Carolina Department of Environment

and Natural Resources Division of Coastal Management, or any other persons, entities or

government agencies concerning amendment of the Official Brunswick County CAMA Land

Use Plan Map with respect to Tax Parcels 1370000806 and/or 15200058. To the extent that

there are documents or other records which pertain or relate to your Answer, please identify

those documents or records.

-7 -WCSR 75I0133v2

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. Without waiving its objections, the County states that the County's communications on this issue would be contained in Planning Board items previously produced and Brunswick County Board of Commissioner items which were also produced previously.

Interrogatory No. 10:

Describe in detail the process of the County's purchase of Tax Parcels 1370000806 and/or

15200058, including any and all communications with the seller, any pre-purchase investigation

or analysis of the property purchased, the tax value of the parcel at the time of the purchase, and

the purchase price. To the extent that there are documents or other records which pertain or


Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. The County further objects to this Interrogatory since Judge Bell already ruled on April 24, 2012 that the County did not need to respond to this Interrogatory.


Describe in detail any and all communications with staff persons and/or officials from the

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Commission and/or the

Carolina Coastal Resources Commission concerning the County's existing, prior and/or

projected landfills. To the extent that there are documents or other records which pertain or


Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. The County further

- 8 -WCSR 75I0133v2

objects to this request since it is not limited to a reasonable scope or timeframe and this interrogatory as written is overbroad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, the County states that it has frequent conversations with NCDENR regarding the landfill and waste water treatment facilities. Absent further clarification regarding what facility the Plaintiff may be interested in inquiring about and a specific timeframe regarding any communications, the County is not able to respond to this interrogatory as drafted.


Describe in detail any and all negotiations with private parties, including but not limited to

Waste Industries Inc. and Sandlands C&D Landfill, LLC, regarding the transport or disposal of

the County's municipal solid waste and/or C&D waste. To the extent that there are documents

or other records which pertain or relate to your Answer, please identify those documents or

records.

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. Without waiving its objections, the County states it is still in the process of searching for and reviewing relevant information and this response will be supplemented as soon as reasonably possible.


Describe in detail the reasons that Commissioner Cooke recused himself from voting on the

rezoning on April 4, 2011. To the extent that there are documents or other records which pertain

or relate to your Answer, please identify those documents or records.

Answer: The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. The County further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks to impose upon the Commissioner's

- 9-WCSR 7510133v2

testimonial or legislative immunity. Lastly, the County objects to this request which is not relevant, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


Identify, by physical address only, the County's current water and sewer service customers.

Answer: : The County objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the instant action is subject to a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the corresponding Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter, and Plaintiffs have already exceeded the number of interrogatories available to it, and therefore this interrogatory is improper. Without waiving its objections, the County states that it has already produced this information in the corresponding action (Royal Oak Concerned Citizens Assn. v. Brunswick County) and said information can be found at Brunswick County production numbers BC006848 through BC007740.

Request No.1:

BRUNSWICK COUNTY'S RESPONSES TO THE

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO PRODUCE

All documents relating to the Plaintiff, the facts underlying this case, or Defendant's defenses to

the claims or denial of any allegations in the Complaint.

Response: The County states that its investigation and discovery into this matter continues, and the County refers Plaintiffs to the thousands of pages of documents already produced in the corresponding action: Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County. The County further states that it will supplement this response as discovery continues.

Request No. 2:

All documents that you identified in response to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories to

Defendant Brunswick County.

- 10-WCSR 7510133v2

Response: The County states that it wiD produce a copy of the 201 Facilities Plan if the Plaintiff does not already have a copy, as the Plaintiffs counsel already inspected said document and copied pertinent sections. The County further states that it is still compiling responsive documents and this request will be supplemented as soon as reasonably possible.

Request No.3:

All documents that support or relate to the contention that the County did not have responsibility

or authority to provide the Plaintiff, members of the ROCCA or residents of the

Royal Oak Community with water or sewer service.

Response: The County objects to this request and the "contention" on the grounds that it is argumentative and inappropriate. The County further refers Plaintiff to its response to Interrogatory No. 1 from the Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs' Revised discovery demands dated October 25, 2011 as well as the County's response to Interrogatory No.4 above.

Request No.4:

All documents supporting or relating to your contention that Brunswick did not discriminate

against the Plaintiff based on either his race or the racial composition of the area in which he

owns his home on Smith Road.

Response: The County objects to this request which is argumentative and contentious in that it is not the County's burden to prove the Plaintiff's case. The County maintains that all of its dealings with Mr. Hardy have been non-discriminatory.

Request No.5:

All documents relating to any insurance policy which could be interpreted as insuring the County

for all or part of the damages and expenses claimed by Plaintiff in this lawsuit.

- 11 -WCSR 7510133v2

Response: The County objects to the term "could be interpreted as insuring the County" as vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objections, the County states that it participates in a local insurance risk pool pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-435. The contents of the applicable policy issued by the insurance risk pool speak for themselves and no representations of coverage are made through this Response. A copy of the applicable policy was previously provided to Plaintiff's counsel at bates numbers BC-006682-BC006842.

Request No.6:

All documents related to any expert whom you intend to call at the trial of this action including

but not limited to each expert's resume and curriculum vitae; all documents related to each

expert's qualifications, experience and background; and all documents reviewed by, relied upon,

or used in forming each expert's opinions.

Response: The County has not yet decided who it will call as expert witness in this matter and therefore the County reserves the right to supplement this request as discovery proceeds herein.

Request No.7:

All documents the County intends to introduce into evidence at the trial of this case that have not

'been produced in response to the above requests.

Response: The County has not yet decided what documents it will use at the trial of this matter and therefore the County reserves the right to supplement this request as discovery proceeds herein.

- 12-WCSR 751OI33v2

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

1. Admit that Plaintiff is not served by County water or sewer services at his Smith Road

house.

Answer: The County admits that there is no County water or sewer service currently extending to 613 Smith Road, Supply, N.C.

2. Admit that at the dates of their acquisition, Tax Parcels 1370000806 and 15200058 were

purchased for the purpose of expanding the existing C&D landfill of Brunswick County.

Answer: The County objects to this Request on the grounds that there is a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter. The County further objects to this request since Judge Bell already ruled on April 24, 2012 that the County did not need to respond to this request.

3. Admit that before Parcels 1370000806 and 15200058 were purchased by

Brunswick County, representatives of Brunswick met with representatives of the North Carolina

Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("NCDENR") regarding a proposed landfill

on those parcels.

Answer: The County states upon information and belief that there were no formal public meetings held with DENR about these parcels, but that a field visit was held with DENR to examine the site where they were advised that this was an area considered for expansion. This field site visit occurred very early on in the process.

- 13 -WCSR 7510133v2

4. Admit that neither the Plaintiff nor residents of the Royal Oak community were informed

of any meetings regarding Parcels 1370000806 and 15200058 between the County and

NCDENR.


5. Admit that Parcels 1370000806 and 15200058 are at least twice as large as the physical

space taken up by the current County landfill.

Answer: The County objects to this request on the ground that the term "physical space taken up by the current County landfill" is undefined and vague. The County further objects to this request which is irrelevant since the size of the parcel has no correlation to the physical size of the landfill, and the parcel size is usually much larger than the physical landfill. Without waiving its objections the County states that the two parcels combined are larger than the current C&D landfill, however as with the current C&D landfill, the physical space taken up by the landfIll is not the same as the actual size of the parcel and would not be on the expansion site either. There are buffers and boundaries and roads and other program areas planned for those parcels.

6. Admit that Parcels 1370000806 and 15200058 do not have access to either railroad or a

major road.


- 14-WCSR 7510133v2

7. Admit that Parcels 1370000806 and 15200058 include wetlands.

Answer: The County admits that some portion of the parcels at issue contain wetlands.

8. Admit that Parcels 1370000806 and 15200058 are in the Royal Oak Community.

Answer: The County objects to this request in that the term "Royal Oak Community" is not recognized as having formal geographic boundaries in Brunswick County. Without waiving its objections, the County states that it cannot admit or deny this request as written. To extent a response is required, denied.

9. Admit that Brunswick County has not conducted a citing study to look for a location

outside of Royal Oak for a C&D landfill.


10. Admit that Sandlands C&D Landfill, LLC and other private parties currently have the

capacity to accommodate all construction debris waste produced in Brunswick County.

Answer: The County objects to this Request on the grounds that there is a pending motion to consolidate this matter with the Royal Oak Concerned Citizens v. Brunswick County matter. The County further objects to this request since Judge Bell already ruled on April 24,2012 that the County did not need to respond to this request.

- 15 -WCSR 7510 I33v2

11. Admit Brunswick County currently has available alternatives to expanding the

C&D landfill, including but not limited to, recycling and/or hauling municipal and construction

debris waste to another landfill.


12. Admit that there have been no changes in the Royal Oak Community area since the

adoption of 2007 Land Use plan which would justify the rezoning of Parcels 1370000806 and

15200058.

Answer: The County objects to this request in that the use of the term "there have been no changes" is undefined and vague and the Royal Oak community is not recognized as having formal geographic boundaries in Brunswick County. As such, the County is unable to admit or deny this request as written. To the extent a response is required, denied.

13. Admit that the Plaintiff asked Defendant to provide him with water and sewer services in

June, 2010.

Answer: The County states that there is no one at the County who recalls speaking with Mark Hardy about his request for water and sewer services. To the extent a further response is required, denied.

The County reserves the right to supplement these requests as discovery proceeds herein.

- 16-WCSR 7SlO133v2

;-tL Thisll. day of October, 2012

WCSR 75I0133v2

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE A Limited Liability Partnership

cqueline erry Hughes, NCSB . 25 ulie B. Bradburn, NCSB No. 312J12

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP 150 Fayetteville St., Suite 2100 P.O. Box 831, Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 755-2169, Fax: (919) 755-6176 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Brunswick County

- 17 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October I $2, I served a copy of the foregoing document entitled DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS upon all parties to this action by depositing the same with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, properly addressed to their attorneys of record as follows:

Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix, Esquire Bethan Eynon, Esquire UNC Center for Civil Rights Campus Box 3382 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3822

Raymond E. Owens, Jr., Esquire Higgins & Owens, PLLC 5925 Carnegie Blvd., Suite 530 Charlotte, NC 278209

Jack Holtzman, Esquire North Carolina Fair Housing

Project, Legal Aid ofNC Post Office Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

WCSR 7510133v2 WCSR 7510133v2

Ja ueline Terry Hughe , NCSB No. 25884 lie B. Bradburn, NCSB No. 31412

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP 150 Fayetteville St., Suite 2100 P.O. Box 831, Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 755-2169, Fax: (919) 755-6176 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Brunswick County

- 18 -

EXHIBIT G

1 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 12

COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK

THE ROYAL OAK CONCERNED CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, CURTIS MCMILLAN AND DENNIS MCMILLAN,

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

BRUNSWICK COUNTY,

DEFENDANT.

]

]

]

]

]

]

File No. ll-CVS-1301

] D E P 0 SIT ION ]

]

]

]

]

--------------------------------]

ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2012, AT 10:00 13 A.M., THE DEPOSITION OF STEVE STONE, WAS TAKEN ON

BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 14 IN THE BRUNSWICK COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX, 30

GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, SE, BOLIVIA, NORTH CAROLINA. 15

16 17

18 TAKEN BY:

19 REBECCA A. CARPENTER

20 21 22

23 24 25

COURT REPORTER/NOTARY PUBLIC

Page 1

1 A. I'm not aware of complaints, so I have to

2 say I'm not sure what sort of complaint you're talking

3 about.

4 Q. Complaints about odor, or traffic, road

5 use by the trucks?

6 A. I'm not aware of any.

7 Q. Does the county have a system to make a

8 complaint or a report of a problem related to a waste

9 water facility?

10 A. Yes. Well, the county has a system

11 integrated into our website where the public may

12 address ask us to address concerns about any county

13 issue. And the system sends automated requests to the

14 department director in the area. I think we publicize

15 our numbers and people know that with any topic they

16 can call our main number. And the departmental numbers

17 are published, too.

18 And I frequently with customer concerns

19 about any issue corne into our main number, the calls

20 are routed to me. And I've personally never received a

21 complaint about the waste water plants.

22 Q. In deciding where to locate the waste

23 water plants, is the socio economic or demographic

24 makeup of the community in the area considered by the

25 county?

\

.

1*

Page 23 11

1 MS. HUGHES: Objection to form.

2 A. My understanding of how the engineering

3 firms made their recommendations was that it was based

4 primarily upon the technical aspects of operating and

managing a waste water system.

Q. But does anyone else at the county I

5

6

7

8

understand what HDR's role was, I think, based on your

testimony.

9 But is there anyone else at the county

10 level that takes this into consideration?

11 MS. HUGHES: Note my objection to the

12 form of the question. If you know?

13 A. We've fully complied with the appropriate

14 NEPA and CIPA procedures that state required for the

15 permitting of the plants. And to the extent that those

16 processes required any kind of socio economic analysis,

17 I'm sure it was done.

18 Q. But you personally don't know whether

19 that was done?

20

21

A. I -- no, I do not.

Q. Do you personally know whether it was

22 required in any state, or county, or federal

23 regulation?

24 MS. HUGHES: And again so I'm clear what

25 the question is, whether socio economic and

I~

demographic data was considered when this

engineering firm was siting location of any

waste water treatment facility in the county.

Is that your question?

MS. HADDIX: No.

MS. HUGHES: Okay.

Page 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Q. The question is whether the -- I'll split

them into two. Whether the county looked at the socio

9 economic status of the people in the area where this

10 facility was to be sited, the sewage treatment plant

11 was to be sited.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

MS. HUGHES: I'm just going to object

then to that question because clearly Mr.

Stone is here as a fact witness not as a

county

Q. If you know? If you know?

A. I do not know. As I said, I am confident

that any required NEPA or CIPA processes, procedures,

19 that the county complied with. I do not know what was

20 required as far as socio economic analysis.

21 Q. Who I understand you were -- you had

22 this project management role over these two sewage

23 plants.

24 Who, either underneath you or within the

25 county, would have been responsible for ensuring that

1

2

3

Q. Just making sure.

A. I do not know.

Q. Okay. Going back to Exhibit 1, and you

4 were explaining that the -- that while the expansion

Page 55

5 onto the adjacent properties of the landfill would make

6 it feasible to do it there, because you wouldn't have

7 those additional regulations applied, you would still

8 have to go through, I think you called it, the paper

9 flow would be the same as in permitting a new site. Is

10 that right?

11 A. Yes.

12

13 so --

14

15

Q. I don't want to misstate your testimony

A. I think that's what I said before.

Q. Okay. Is it also the case that the

16 county would have to consider socio economic and

17 demographic data before selecting this site?

18 MS. HUGHES: Note my objection to form.

19 Again, he's not speaking on behalf of

20

21

22

23

Q. If you know?

MS. HUGHES: -- the county.

Q. If you know?

A. I do not think we would for a C&D

24 landfill.

25 Q. And why not?

Page 56

1 A. Because the regulations, as I understand

2 it, say that that analysis is required for sanitary

3 landfills receiving residential solid waste. And C&D,

4 by definition, is not residential solid waste.

5 Q. What information do you have to support

6 your testimony that by definition C&D is not

7 residential solid waste? I~

8 MS. HUGHES: Note my objection to form. I

9 A. The state regulations have definitions

10 and that's the basis.

11 Q. So it's your testimony that the

12 information on which you base your position that C&D is

13 not residential solid waste, is the definitions that

14 are in the statute. Is that IJ

15 A. I think in the -- I'm not certain if it's

16 in the statute or if it's in the administrative

17 regulations published by the Division of Solid Waste.

18 Q. Have you talked with anyone at the

19 Division of Solid Waste to confirm that opinion?

20 A. Dewberry and Davis has. I have not

21 personally.

22 Q. And who at Dewberry and Davis?

23 A. It would -- I don't know, but it would

24 probably have been either Chris Brown or Matt West.

25 Q. How do you know that somebody -- that

Page 57

1 either Chris Brown -- well, how do you know that

2 somebody from Dewberry and Davis talked with Division

3 of Solid Waste about whether or not the socio economic

4 or demographic data would be required?

5 A. Because I discussed it with Chris Brown.

6 Q. When did you discuss it with Chris Brown?

7 A. Within the last year, year and a half

8 possibly.

9

10

11

12

13

14

Q. Tell me about that discussion. Where

were you when you talked with Chris Brown about this?

A. I believe in the Operation Services

conference room.

Q. Who else was present?

A. I believe stephanie Lewis and Matt West,

15 and I don't think anybody else was present.

16 Q. And Matt West is with Division of Solid

17 Waste?

18 A. No. Matt West works for Chris Brown.

19 Q. And okay. And so, tell me about the

20

21

discussion -- what did you and Stephanie Lewis, and

Matt West, and Chris Brown, talk about during this

22 discussion?

23 A. We were talking about the permitting

24 process for the landfill, and I had asked if the

25 particular statute and the regulations were applicable

Page 58

1 to C&D, and if they had talked to Solid Waste Division

2 folks about that.

3

4

Q. And what did they say?

A. That they had and it was not applicable.

5 That it was only applicable to landfills that were

6 taking residential solid waste.

7 Q. Why did you bring this up to them?

8

9

10

A. Because I had been asked about it.

Q. From who?

A. By some of the staff that were involved

11 in the special exception application process.

12 Q. And which staff, which individuals?

13

14

A. It was probably Stephanie.

Q. SO just to make sure I understand your

15 testimony, you don't know who from Division of Waste

16 Management -- I'm sorry -- Division of Solid Waste

17 spoke with Chris Brown or any, or the person from

18 Dewberry?

19 A. I do not know who spoke with Dewberry.

20 Q. Are there any written recordings or

21 documents that concern this discussion that you had

22 with Dewberry and Davis?

23

24

A. To the best of my knowledge, not.

Q. SO did the county consider any socio

25 economic or demographic data before deciding to expand

Page 59 I,

1 the landfill? ~


3 A. The -- well, the county has not made a

4 final decision as to whether or not to expand the

5 landfill. That final decision would not be made until

6 such time as the state had both approved a site and

7 approved a permit to construct a C&D landfill. So

8 Q. Well, what then is the resolution that

9 the Board of Commissioners passed back in April of

10 2011, that decided to site the landfill on the adjacent

11 property?

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

MS. HUGHES: Well, note my objection to

the form of the question.

Q. What is that?

MS. HUGHES: Again, this witness is not

here as a 30(b) (6) to speak on behalf of the

county.

Q. If you know?

A. My understanding is that that type of

20 resolution is a notice of intent, that is the first

21 step, in the case of permitting a landfill in North

22 Carolina, a very long process. And that really a

23 decision isn't made by Brunswick County or any

24 applicant for that matter until way further in that

25 process.

1 Q. So it's a -- the resolution is a notice

2 of intent that the county will, intends to site a

3 landfill on the adjacent property. Is that correct?

4 MS. HUGHES: Again, objection to form.

5 A. Would you say that again, please?

6 Q. Let me -- let me ask this a different

7 way.

8 Do you understand what the regulations

9 that we were just talking about, the North Carolina's

10 Sections 153A-136C, the provision that we were

11 discussing that requires the consideration of socio

12 economic and demographic data

13 MS. HUGHES: Note my objection. Well,

14 I'm sorry.

15 MS. HADDIX: Let me get my question

16 finished. It's a long question.

17 MS. HUGHES: Okay.

18 Q. - do you understand what that requires?


20 form.

21 A. In broad terms, I do.

22 Q. That prior to selecting a site for a

Page 60

23 landfill if it's, if that site is located within a mile

24 of an existing landfill the county has to consider this

25 other information.

1 Do you understand that that's what it

2 requires?

3

4

A. I'm, I'm -- yes.

Q. So when in the process of selecting the

5 site -- I'm sorry.

6 When in the county's process, in this

7 case, in its decision to expand the landfill, would

8 that information have been considered, had it been

9 required to be considered?

A. At whatever it -- you know, this is a

Page 61

10

11 state driven application process. So at whatever point

12 that the state of North Carolina would deem that they

13 needed that data, if they needed it at all, we would

14 provide it.

15 Q. And on what do you base that opinion or

16 understanding?

17

18

A. Because it's -- if -- as said, we don't

believe that that's a requirement for a C&D landfill.

19 But if the state of North Carolina said: we need this

20 data set to approve a permit for you, either a site

21 permit or a construction permit, then we would provide

22 that data set at that time.

23 Q. And it's your understanding that that

24 might -- that that request, first of all, comes from

25 the state; it's not something the county has to do on

1 point would cover Exhibit 5, the documents from the

2 1990s?

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

MS. HUGHES: Note my objection to the

form.

Q. On Exhibit 3. I'm sorry. Not Exhibit 5.

A. That is such a broad statement, I guess

it would be included.

Q. Do you understand what information we're

seeking in that last bullet point of Exhibit 7?

MS. HUGHES: Objection to form.

A. It is so broad that I would not know

12 specifically what documents you wanted.

13 Q. Are there any other site evaluation

Page 112

14 studies, any other reports, or documents, which pertain

15 to sites considered by Brunswick County for landfilling

16 that you are aware of?

17

18

A. None that I'm aware of.

MS. HUGHES: Other than what's already

19 been produced, right?

20 A. Other than what's in front of us.

21 Q. Okay. Are you aware that the county has

22 denied the assertion that it failed to consider

23 Brunswick -- socio economic and demographic data,

24 before selecting the site for the C&D expansion?


Ii

Page 113

1 A. Brunswick County has not made a final

2 site selection, therefore that question really can't be

3 answered yet.

4 Q. Has Brunswick County applied for a permit

5 for any other site for a C&D landfill in Brunswick

6 other than the one that was denied by the Planning

7 Board this year?

8 A. Brunswick County has not applied to the

9 state for a site at all.

10 Q. Okay. Has Brunswick County applied for a

11 special exception permit for any other site, other than

12 the one that was submitted and denied this year?

13 A. No, we have not.

14 Q. So and has Brunswick County -- well, let

15 me ask you this.

16 How much did that 2008 preliminary site

17 evaluation that Dewberry did, how much did that cost

18 the county?

19

20

21

22

23

24

MS. HUGHES: Note my objection to form.

A. I do not know off the top of my head.

Q. Was it more than $300,OOO?

MS. HUGHES: Note my objection to form.

A. I think it was.

Q. How much money has the county spent, if

25 you know, total, on pursuing the properties that were,

, j

Page 116 i

1 construct a C&D landfill.

2 Q. SO my question was, were you aware that

3 defendant has denied the assertion, that in that action

4 that it's taken, it did not consider any socio economic

5 or demographic data?

6 MS. HUGHES: Objection to form. You can

7 answer.

8 A. And would you please rephrase or just

9 repeat it?

10 Q. Are you aware that the county has denied

11 the assertion that it did not consider any socio

12 economic and demographic data?

13 In other words, if you look at Exhibit 6

14 and Exhibit 5, there is a request for that information

15 and the county has denied that assertion.

16 I've asked you, did the county consider

17 any socio economic or demographic data, in whatever you

18 want to call the process that they went through to

19 identify these properties for the landfill expansion.

20 MS. HUGHES: I'm just going to object to

21 the form of the question because you're

22 basically asking him two questions. You're

23 asking him why the county responded a certain

24 way to an RFA, which is different than the

25 question that you are now asking him here.

i

Page 117

1 So I just want to make sure that you're

2 clear on what you're asking and that the

3 witness is clear on what he is being asked to

4 respond to.

5 Don't refer to the RFA unless you're

6 going to show it to him and ask him, are you

7 aware of this; or ask your question and do

8 that separately. But you're making a

9 comparison that does not exist.

10 So that was my objection.

11 Q. Thanks. So let me just ask you this.

12 Did the county consider -- forget whether

13 or not they decided to put a landfill on these adjacent

14

15

properties or not, and whatever you want to call what

the county did with respect to these parcels; did the

16 county consider, did you or anyone else consider socio

17 economic and demographic data?

18 MS. HUGHES: Note my objection.

19 Q. I understand your testimony that you

20 didn't have to, but did you consider it?


22 form of the question.

23 A. I did not.

24 Q. Did anyone you know at the county level

25 do so?

1

2

A. Not that I am aware of.

Q. How many MSW landfills has the county

3 operated since 1970, if you know?

4 A. They are numerous. I cannot give you an

5 exact number.

6 Q. Have you -- are you familiar with the

7 prior MSW landfill sites that the county had?

8 A. I am vaguely familiar with some of them.

9 Q. Tell me about the ones you are familiar

10 with.

A. There was an approximately 10-acre

Page 118

11

12

13

landfill in, north of Holden Beach on the mainland,

that is actually on a tract of property that the county

14 has acquired for a different purpose.

15 There was a county operated landfill

16 inside what is now the saint James Community on NC 211.

17 There was a county landfill somewhere ln

18 northern Brunswick County in the general Leland

19 vicinity, that I do not know an exact location for it.

20 And I believe there was a landfill on the

21 mainland somewhere just north of Ocean Isle Beach

22 are the, are the ones that come to mind that staff have

23 shared with me.

24 Q. The one at Holden Beach, when did it

25 operate, if you know, from when to when?

EXHIBIT H

-----Original Message-----From: Ray Owens [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:33 AM To: Bradburn, Julie; Hughes, Jackie Terry Cc: Haddix, Elizabeth McLaughlin ([email protected]); Jack Holtzman ([email protected]) ([email protected]); Eynon, Bethan R ([email protected]); Dorosin, Mark ([email protected]) Subject: Follow Up Discovery Items

Jackie and Julie--

Over the past weeks we have submitted various requests for supplemented discovery and you all have responded by letters on December 7th and 31st, 2012. We appreciate your efforts in supplementing the requests. For the sake of clarity, we have compiled the attached which reflects requested materials which we do not yet have. Where you believe you have already provided the material requested, we would appreciate knowing the date it was provided. Given the proposed scheduling order and the 30(b)(6) deposition set for Jan. 28th and 29th, we would like to receive the attached items on or before January 11th so that we may have sufficient time to review them in advance of the 30 (b) depositions. It is our understanding the defendant is tendering Leslie Bell, Jerry Pierce and Stephanie Lewis as its deponents for those dates. Two days may be tight with three witnesses and we do not want to lengthen the examination( and we assume you agree) because we have not had sufficient time to review the documents. Thank you.

Ray

1

1. There are two outstanding requests from our November 27, 2012 letter. As to Plaintiffs' first request pertaining to RFPD 34, Defendant answered in its December 7, 2012 letter that "the County is looking for any responsive documents." Please provide such documents or advise immediately if none exist. As to Plaintiffs' second request pertaining to RFPD 43, Defendant answered in its December 7, 2012 Supplemental Response that "the County will search for copies of responsive documents." Please provide such documents or advise inunediately if none exist.

2. There are also two outstanding requests from our November 30, 2012 letter. As to Plaintiffs' items six and seven from that letter, Defendant responded in its December 7, 2012 letter that "[ t]he County is looking for what, if any, responsive documents exist." Please provide such documents or advise immediately if none exist.

3. By letter dated December 10,2012, Plaintiffs requested that Defendant supplement its discovery responses. We look forward to receiving those responses by January 9, 2013.

4. Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' RFPD 58 does not include a copy of the minutes from the July 21,2011 "community meeting." Please provide such documents or advise immediately if none exist, as requested during Mr. Stone's deposition.

5. We look forward to receiving the complete version of the documents Defendant provided on December 7. As discussed during Mr. Stone's deposition on December 12, several pages were missing from documents dated during the 1990s. You gave us one of the missing pages during the deposition; we need the other missing pages.

6. Mr. Stone testified that he met with Dewberry & Davis representatives concerning the applicability of state regulations to C&D landfills (see transcript at 57). We requested during the deposition copies of any and all documents pertaining to those discussions and/or that meeting, as well as copies of any and all correspondence with, and/or concerning DENR and/or Dewberry & Davis about the applicability of state regulations to C&D landfills. Defendant should have provided us with copies of those documents, as well as interoffice memos, emails or other recordings, in response to plaintiffs' RF As 25 & 26 and RFPDs 45 and 46. Please provide those to us now.

7. We also asked in Mr. Stone's deposition (see transcript, p 96) for any and all documents which pertain or relate to the 1999 Dewberry & Davis MSW site evaluation, which Defendant should have provided in response to Plaintiffs' first set of discovery requests. Mr. Stone testified that there were "at least two emails" between Stephanie Lewis and Dewberry & Davis. The response to this request should include copies of those communications and any others pertaining to the 1999 site evaluation.

8. Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' RFPD 44 did not include copies of the spreadsheets Mr. Stone testified should exist (see transcript, p 184). Please provide copies of those spreadsheets, as requested in our December 10, 2012 letter.

9. In response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory 17, Defendant has produced a copy of the 201 Facilities Plan (BC008 I 95-8844) and a copy of the Waste Water Master Plan (BC006052). To the extent, as Mr. Stone testified (at p 18), other documents exist which pertain to selecting the site for the West Brunswick wastewater treatment plant, please provide copies of any and all such documents. Ifno documents other than the Facilities Plan and Master Plan exist which are responsive to Interrogatory 17, please so advise.

10. As requested in Mr. Stone's deposition (at 99), please provide copies of any and all documents, including minutes, memoranda, emails and other correspondence, pertaining or relating to the "Brunswick County Citizens' Committee," as well as any and all documents pertaining or relating to the "citizens task force" Mr. Stone references at pp. 99-100 of his deposition transcript. Defendant's answer should include lists of the individuals who made up the committee and task force.

II. Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' RFPD 30 in its Nov. 21, 2012 Supplemental Response was not responsive to the request, which sought any and all documents regarding the "water and wastewater needs" in Brunswick County, and "water and wastewater needs of low and moderate income persons" in Brunswick County, as identified in Defendant's response to questions #3 and #4 on BC005235. These questions in the grant application at BC005235 were solely concerned with water/wastewater needs of persons generally and low and moderate income persons in Brunswick County. Defendant's response merely provided documents related to different, Scattered Site Housing CDBG grant applications, solely concerning replacement, demolition or rehabilitation of existing private housing and related relocation assistance, and did not concern the water and/or wastewater needs of any Brunswick County persons. Please provide copies of the supporting data and related documents concerning water and/or wastewater needs for the 2003-04 CDBG application, as well as for all of Defendant's CDBG applications during the requested period, including those identified at BC 005394-005395, 005716-005717, 005951-005952, or advise us that they do not exist.

12. Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' RFPD 50, which corresporids to RFA 30, needs to be supplemented to provide complete copies (including attachments) of all documents entitled "Environmental Review at the Community Level" submitted to any government agency in relation to any and all applications for CDBG grant funds during the period from 2000 to the present. A (possibly incomplete) copy of one such "Environmental Review" document exists at Bates BC005730 - 005739. We ask that Defendant provide those pages from the "Environmental Review" document beginning at BC005730 that seem to be missing from the copy provided (e.g. pp. 6-11, 14), plus any attachments. Finally, Defendant's version ofRFA 30 appears to inadvertently include a reference to three 2009 CDBG applications, but the answer is still non-responsive. Although Defendant has only provided copies of CDBG applications dated 2003-04 through 2011, Plaintiffs Revised RFPD 16 and RFPD 24, as discussed extensively between counsel

since August 2011, span the period from at least 2000 to the presenL If other responsive documents exist from that period, we ask that they be produced immediately, or be advised that none exist.

WOMBIE .. ····· .. ·····CARtYtEf! ....

SANDRIDGE & RICE

A LIMITED LIABILITY

PARTNERSHIP

Via Email

I 50 Fayetteville Street . ·SUiie 2100 .

Raleigh. NC 27601

Mailing Addrus: Pos t Office Box 83 I Raleigh. NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 755-2100 Fax: (919) 755-2150 www.wcsr.com

January 8, 2013

Raymond E. Owens, Jr., Esquire Higgins & Owens, PLLC 5925 Carnegie Blvd., Suite 530 Charlotte, NC 278209

Jackie Terry Hughes Direct Dial: (919) 755-2109 Direct Fax: (919) 484-2063 E-mail: [email protected]

Re: The Royal Oak Concerned Citizens Association, et aL, v. Brunswick County File No.: 11 CVS 1301

Dear Ray:

Please allow this letter to address your email from Friday January 4, 2013. In your letter you request immediate responses to a number of new document requests. While we will not ask you to put the new requests into a formal and appropriate "Notice of Requests to Produce," we are certainly entitled to respond to those new requests within the timeframe dictated by Rule 34. In addition, we have just finished an extended holiday season where a number of County employees were off for the holidays. There is a lot of County business which needs to be done, in addition to continuing to work to respond to Plaintiffs' requests.

Should you be concerned that you will not have the time you need to prepare for the scheduled 30(b)(6) depositions, then we suggest you reschedule the 30(b)(6) depositions for a time after the 30 days to respond has expired. It is the plaintiffs' responsibility to request documents in advance of a deposition. That being said, we will work as always to respond in as expedient a manner as possible.

We address your particular requests as follows:

1. RPD 34- We will provide you with a supplemental response to this request within a week.

2. RPD 43- We will provide you with a supplemental response to this request within a week.

3. You note that "by letter dated December 10, 2012, plaintiffs requested that Defendant supplement its discovery responses." However, the letter by Ms. Bnyon also properly requested a response to the new discovery demands within 30 days. We plan on timely responding to this request.

CALIFORNIA I DELAWARE I GEORGlA ! MARYLAND I NORTH CAROliNA I SOUTH CAROLINA I VIRGINIA I WASHINGTON D.C.

WOMBLE ...

CARLYLE"SANDRIDGE

Raymond E. Owens, Jr. January 8, 2013

& RICE Page 2 UP

4. Your request for the July 21,2011 meeting minutes is a duplicate request from that made in Ms. Enyon's letter of December 10th

•

5. Our copy of the documents is similar to yours. We will work to try to locate the remaining missing pages and provide you with whatever we can find within a week.

6. Your request for any meeting notes andlor documents generated from meetings with Mr. Stone and Dewberry and Davis is a new request and will be responded to within time required by Rule 34. This request is clearly different than the material sought in RFA 25 and 26 and RPD 45 and 46.

7. We have already provided you with the 1999 MSW site evaluation. The request raised at the Stone deposition is a different document request concerning what correspondence may exist between the County and Dewberry regarding the history ofthe 1999 MSW study. We will respond to this request within the time allotted by Rule 34.

8. Your request for "all spreadsheets" seeks, as counsel understand the request, all projects by the County with no limitation as to the type of project, nor when the alleged ranking was performed. The County considers this request overbroad and burdensome. Further this is a new request and was not contained within the scope ofRPD No. 44 which sought documents concerning "how" the County created its priority and rating system. That request was fully responded to and numerous documents were produced. The County will respond to this new request under the timeframe provided by Rule 34.

9. Your request does not make sense. Mr. Stone did not testify, nor did you ask for any other documents at page 18 of his deposition.

10. This is a new request and will be responded to within the timeframe allotted under Rule 34.

11. This is a new request and will be responded to within the timeframe allotted under Rule 34.

12. We will search for documents responsive to your additional request, to the extent that there are any available.

As noted above, the County is entitled to thirty (30) days to respond to plaintiffs' additional discovery requests. Many of these requests are based on review of responses served on your clients at the end of November. It is not reasonable to now demand immediate responses to a number of new demands, simply to suit your deposition schedule. We will not consent to commence and keep open the County's 30(b)(6) depositions until such time as your recent discovery requests are due. Please advise immediately whether you are planning on moving forward with the depositions.

~r ······5ANDRID6E

& RICE LLP

Raymond E. Owens, Ir. January 8, 2013

····Page-]

Request for Depositions of Former County Commissioner Chair Sue and County Manager Lawing

We are in receipt of your request for dates for the County Manager's deposition and former Brunswick County Commissioner William Sue. We would like to know the reason you seek to impose on the County Manager and why you believe you are entitled to a fact witness deposition of him. In addition, we would like to hear from you regarding what personal information you believe former County Commissioner Sue has relative to this litigation. He was not in the same district as the Royal Oak community, and the County has already been imposed upon by having to produce Assistant County Manager Steve Stone as well as the District Four County Commissioner Scott Phillips. Please consider this a good faith request for this information.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding the above.

JTHlvsm Enclosures cc: Elizabeth Haddix

Bethan Enyon Jack Holtzman

Regards

WOMBLE CARLYLE

?M RIDG~rlt'iL l~ Vc,.G1~'- yP

J ie Terry Hughes

EXHIBIT I

Exhibit I

Plaintiffs' Document Requests

New Request served 114113 Prior Request

Mr. Stone testified that he met with Dewberry & RF A #25: Admit that Defendant did not Davis representatives concerning the applicability of consider demographic and socioeconomic state regulations to C&D landfills (see transcript at data prior to selecting the location for the 57). We requested during the deposition copies of any current C&D landfill. and all documents pertaining to those discussions RF A #26: Admit that Defendant did not and/or that meeting, as well as copies of any and all consider demographic and socioeconomic correspondence with, and/or concerning DENR and/or data prior to selecting the location for the Dewberry & Davis about the applicability of state future (or so-called "expansion" of the regulations to C&D landfills. Defendant should have existing) C&D landfill. provided us with copies of those documents, as well RFPD #45. Any and all documents which as interoffice memos, emails or other recordings, in support Defendant's Answer to below RF A response to plaintiffs' RF As 25 & 26 and RFPDs 45 #25. and 46. Please provide those to us now. RFPD 46. Any and all documents which

support Defendant's Answer to RF A #36.

We also asked in Mr. Stone's deposition (see RFPD #3: All documents referring to the transcript, p 96) for any and all documents which 1999 Solid Waste Site Evaluation or pertain or relate to the 1999 Dewberry & Davis MSW Suitability Study prepared for Brunswick site evaluation, which Defendant should have provided County by Dewberry and Davis, Inc., in response to Plaintiffs' first set of discovery requests. including the 1999 Trial Solid Waste Mr. Stone testified that there were "at least two Sustainability Study for Brunswick County. emails" between Stephanie Lewis and Dewberry & Davis. The response to this request should include copies of those communications and any others pertaining to the 1999 site evaluation.

Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' RFPD 44 did not RFPD #44: Any and all documents, include copies of the spreadsheets Mr. Stone testified including emails and other correspondence, should exist (see transcript, p 184). Please provide regarding how Defendant created its copies of those spreadsheets, as requested in our "priority list and rating system" for water and December 10, 2012 letter. sewer requests. Your response should

include any and all documents, including emails and other correspondence, related to the recommendations referenced at BC004212.

As requested in Mr. Stone's deposition (at 99), please RFPD # 3: All documents referring to the provide copies of any and all documents, including 1999 Solid Waste Site Evaluation or minutes, memoranda, emails and other Suitability Study prepared for Brunswick correspondence, pertaining or relating to the County by Dewberry and Davis, Inc., "Brunswick County Citizens' Committee," as well as including the 1999 Trial Solid Waste any and all documents pertaining or relating to the

1

"citizens task force" Mr. Stone references at pp. 99-100 of his deposition transcript. Defendant's answer should include lists of the individuals who made up the committee and task force.

Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' RFPD 30 in its Nov. 21, 2012 Supplemental Response was not responsive to the request, which sought any and all documents regarding the "water and wastewater needs" in Brunswick County, and "water and wastewater needs of low and moderate income persons" in Brunswick County, as identified in Defendant's response to questions #3 and #4 on BC005235. These questions in the grant application at BC005235 were solely concerned with water/wastewater needs of persons generally and low and moderate income persons in Brunswick County. Please provide copies of the supporting data and related documents concerning water and/or wastewater needs for the 2003-04 CDBG application, as well as for all of Defendant's CDBG applications during the requested period, including those identified at BC 005394-005395, 005716-005717, 005951-005952, or advise us that they do not exist.

Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' RFPD 50, which corresponds to RF A 30, needs to be supplemented to provide complete copies (including attachments) of all documents entitled "Environmental Review at the Community Level" submitted to any government agency in relation to any and all applications for CDBG grant funds during the period from 2000 to the present. A (possibly incomplete) copy of one such "Environmental Review" document exists at Bates BC005730 - 005739. We ask that Defendant provide those pages from the "Environmental Review" document beginning at BC005730 that seem to be missing from the copy provided (e.g. pp. 6-11, 14), plus any attachments. Finally, Defendant's version of RF A 30 appears to inadvertently include a reference to three 2009 CDBG applications, but the answer is still non-responsive. Although Defendant has only provided copies of CDBG applications dated 2003-04 through 2011, Plaintiffs Revised RFPD 16 and RFPD 24, as discussed extensively between counsel since August 201 1, span the period from at least 2000 to the present. If other responsive documents exist from that period, we ask that they be produced immediately, or be advised that none exist.

WCSR 7632037vl 2

Sustainability Study for Brunswick County.

RFPD #30 Any and all documents, including Planning and/or Utility Board meeting recordings and minutes, GIS maps, email and other correspondence, regarding the water and sewer needs identified in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Defendant' s 2003-04 CDBG application (BC 005235).

RFPD #50. Any and all documents which support Defendant's Answer to below RFA#30.

RF A #30. Admit that only one application for CDBG funds submitted by Defendant to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, the 2009 application, has included an "Environmental Review at the Community Level" report. There are 3 CDBG grants from 2009. They all have an environmental review done.