I BP.ST BEST & KRIF,GER TIP EXYMPT FROM FILING FEES ERIC L ... · I Defendant IZOSAMONI) COMMUNITY SF;RVICFS DISTRICT QT)istricl’) submits (he 2 following response to Special Interrogatones,

I BP.ST BEST & KRIF,GER TIP EXYMPT FROM FILING FEESERIC L. GARNER. Bar No. IJUóóS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE

2 JLII•,IV V. DUNN. liar Ne. I3I926 SEC’HON 6103STEFAN1F,T). HF,IThtTND, T3arNo. 239787

3 5 PARK PLAZA, SUI’I’F. ] 5(1(1IRVINE CAuFORlA 26I4

4 TELEPIIONE: (9491 263-2600Tht.ECOPTER: (949) 260-0972

Attorncys for Defendant6 ROSANONI) COMMUNITY SERVICES

DISTRICT7

S

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES —CENTR.AI. DISTRICT

I 2 ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER RELATED CASE TO JUDICIALCASES (X)IJ1\CIL (X)ORDINATI()N

13 PROCEEDING NO. 4408Fbi s Pleading Relates to hid tLcIed A cli on:

14 REBECCA LEE WILLIS, on belialiciherselfand all others similarly situated, ROSAMOND COMMUNITY

IS SERVICES rnSTmCT RESPONSES ToPlaintiff PLAINTIFF Wll,1JS’ FIRST SET OF

lb vs. SPECIAL TNTERROGATORIES

17 T..O5 ANGEI.E5 COUNTY WATERWORKSDISTRICT NO. 40; CITY OF LANCASTER;CiTy 01’ LOS ANGELES; CITY 0!’PAIMDALE; PALMDALE WATER

19 DISTRICT; LITTLEROCK CREEKIRRIGATION DISTRICT; PALM RANCH

20 IRRIGATION DISTRICT; QUARTZ HILLWATER DISTRICT: ANTELOPE VALLEY

21 WATER CO.; ROSAMOND CO14MUNITYSERVICE DISThICT; MOIAVE PUBLIC

22 uTILITY DISTRICT; and DOES I through1,000;

23Do fondant

24

25 PROPOU11DING PARTY: PIaintifIREBECCA LEE WILLIS

26 RESPONDING PARTY: Dclöndant ROSAMONI) COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

27 SE’]ENTJMBER: One(l)

28

ROSAMOND COMMuNITY SRVICS DISTRKrr’s R KS PONSES TO RF.IiFCCA I Fr. WIlLIS FIRST ET OFSPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

I Defendant IZOSAMONI) COMMUNITY SF;RVICFS DISTRICT QT)istricl’) submits (he

2 following response to Special Interrogatones, Set One, propounded by PlaintiffREBECCA LEE

3 WIT .1,18 (“Willis’’):

4

5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

6 The District is in the process of conducting its investigation and discovery in this action

Consequently, the District responds to these Special interrogatorics to thc best ofits knowledge,

hal in doing so, reserves lie nghl 1° aniend ils response at a Future dale- The District further

9 reserves the right to offer, at time oftnal, facts, testimony or other evidence discovered

10 subsequent to and not included in this response, and assumes no obligation to voluntarily

II supplement or amend this response to reflect such facts, testimony or other evidence.

12

13 GENERAL OBJECTIONS

14 By responding to Willis’ Special Intenogatories, Set One, the District does not concede

15 the relevancy or materiality of any request, or of the subject to which such request refers.

16 Each Ttsponse is made subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, niateriality,

I? propriety, atlinissibility, attorney-client privilege, attorrey work product doctrine, and the

IS deliberative process privilege, as well as any or all other objections and grounds which would

19 require exclusion ci’ evidence. The District reserves the right to make any and all such objections

20 aL trial and al any otberproceedmg relaling to this action.

21 ‘the specific responses and objections ven below are submitted without prejudice to, and

22 without waiving, any ofthese objections even though the general objections are not expressly set

23 forth in each response.

24

25 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

26 The District incorporates fully the foregoing Preliminary Statement and General

27 Objections into each olthe i’ollowing specific objections and responses, and no specific objection

28 or response shall be construed to waive any oftbe General Objections.2

Rf ISA MON D COMM iN ‘IV S F ItV if: ES I) I Si RICES R FS I’[)N.SXS 11) R ER Cf :4 : IX F WI’’ Is! K’ ILST SE’r OKSPECIAL nSTERROC.kTORIES

I SPECTATTNTERROGATORYNO. I:

State the date when YOU first st’ted pumping watei- from the Basin.

3 RFSPONSE To SPECIAI INTERROGATORY NO I

4 The Disthct incorpui-ates herein its Prelin,inai-v Stateilient and General Objections as

though exprcssly set forth herein. Without waiving the foregoins objections, the District has been

6 pLinipilig groundwater water since 1966.

7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY PO. 2:

State by month and year, the quantity of groundwater YOU have pumped from each well

9 that VOl.1 have operated in the Basin daring the RELEVANT PERIOD.

10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAl TNTERROGATORV NO.2,

II rhe District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

12 though expressly set forth herein. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District

13 maintains records showing the quantity of groundwater pumped by the District. A compilation,

14 abstnct. audit or summary ofthe Districts records is necessary in order to answer the

15 lntem,gatoTv; no such coiiipilation is presently known to exist showing monthly totals; and the

16 burden ofexpense ofpreparins or making it would be substantially the same for an interroaating

17 party as [or the District. Pursuant to Code ofcivil Procedure Section 2030.230, a response to this

IS InteTrogatory may be ascertained from the records identified iii Exhibit I attached hereto.

19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

20 State by month and year the amount ofState Project water, i.e. imported water, YOU have

21 purchased from the Antelope Valley-East Keni Water Agency, over the Relevant Period.

22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.3:

23 The District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

24 though expressly set forth herein. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District

25 maintains records showing amounts ofwaterpurchased from the Antelope Valley-East Kern

26 Water Agency. A compilation, abstract, audit or summary of the District’s records is necessary in

27 order to answer the Interrogatory; no such compilation is presently known to exist; and the burden

25 ofexpense oipreparing or making it would he substantially the same for an intenogating party as3

ROSAMOND cOMMUNITY SERVICES OISTRICTS RESPONSES TO REBECCA LEE WILLIS FIRST SET OFSPECIAl. INIIiRRO(;ArORIKS

I ft)r (he District. Pursuant to Cede of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230. a rcspensc to this

2 Interrogatory flay he ascertained froiii the records identified in Exhibit I at(ached hereto.

3 SPECIAL IPTERROGATORY O, 4:

4 State by iiiontb and veer, the verage cost of water YOU have purchased from .4ntelope

VaIlcy-East Kern Water Agency for each year from 1990 to the present.

6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.4,

7 lie District incorporales herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

8 though expressly set faith herein. Additionally, the District objects to this Interrogatory because

9 the phrase “average cost of water’’ is vague. ambiguous or unintelligible. Finally, the District

10 objects under Code ofcivil Procedure Section 2030.220, sLrhd!vision (C), because the infoniiatic,n

‘I requested is equally available to the propounding party from a public entity, (he Aaitelope Valley-

12 East Kern Water Agency. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District maintains

13 records showing costs hr water purchased from the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency.

14 A compilation, abstract, auditor summary ofthe District’s records is necessary in order to answer

15 (he Tntemgatory; no such conipilatiori is presently loown showing monthly totals and the burden

16 ofexpense ofprepaiiug or making it would be substantially the same for an interrogating party as

17 fhr the District. Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure Section 2030.230, a response to this

18 Tntenogatory maybe ascertained from payment records in (he District’s possession.


20 State the total quantity. by month and year, ofnon-municipal/non-iadustrial pumping of

21 grottndwator from the Basin for the years 1990 to date.

22 RESPONSE TO SPECTAI INTERROGATORY NO.5:


24 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it

25 requests information protected by the attorney work product doctrine and attorney-client

26 privilege. This Interrogatory is (he sLthject of expert witness investigation and may he answered

27 at the time such expert withess investigation is appropriately disclosed pursuant to Court Order

28 and the Code ofuivil Procedure. The District further objects because the Interrogatory is vague,4

ROSAMOND COMMUMTV SERVICES DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO REBECCA LEE WILLIS FIRST SET OFSPECIAL iNIERI(OGAIORIES

I ambiguous or unintelligible as to the identity oftlle person or entity pumping water tin ‘non

2 municipal/non-industrial pumping oigroundwater.” Without waiving any ofthe foregoing

3 objections, the Distñct responds by stating it does not pump çoundwater For non-municipal/non-

4 industrial use.

5

6 SPECTAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6,

7 State the amount or quantity of groundwater recharge to the Basin that YOU contend has

8 been aimually supplied from natural sources for each year from 1990 to date.



II though expressly set tin-tb herein. The District objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it

12 requests infornution protected by the attomey work product (Ioctnne and atlomey-elienteujSz

2 13 pnvi lege. This Interrogatory is the sub1 eet of expert witness investigation and may be answered

14 at tire time such expeit wnness investigation is appropnately disclosed pursuant to Court Order

I 5 and the Code ofcivil Procedure.


I? For each year from 1990 to the present state the amount or quantity oFgroundwater

18 recharge to the Basin that YOU contend has been annually provided by any return flows from

19 water that YOU have imported.


21 tie District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections mis

22 though expressly set lbrtlm herein. The District objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it

23 requests information protected by the attomey work product tloctnne and attorney-client

24 privilege. This Interrogatory is the subject olexpert witness investigation and may be answered

25 at the time such expert withess investigation is appropriately disclosed prirsaant to CoLirt Order

26 md the Code olCivil Procedure.

17 SPECLAJINTERROGATORYNO. 8

28 State the amount ofoundwater recharge to the Basin that YOU contend has beenS

ROSAMONI) COMF%ItIN1TV SFRVICFS DlSTRiCt’ RST)DPSIrS ri) RhBhC C& LFL WILLIS! FIRSI SLI CflSPECLL INTERR0CATOmES

I anrnrnl]v provided by any return lows Iron, agncr,]tura] uses br each year from 1990 to the

2 present.

3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. S:

4 The District incorporates herein its Preliiiinary S tate]lleill and General Objections as

5 though expressly set forth herein. rhe District obj acts to this interrogatory to the extent that it

6 requests inlbmiation protected by the attorney work product doctrine and attorney-client

7 privilege. This lntelrogatory is the subject ofexperl witness investigation and may be answered

at the time such expert witness investigation is appropriately disclosed pursuant to Court Order

9 and the Code of Civil Procedure.


ii State each and eveI-v fact in support ofyour contention that “the Basin is nd has been in

12 an overdraft condition for more than five (5) consecutive years before the filing ofthis cross-

13 complaint”, as alleged in paragraph 29 of your Cross—Complaint.

14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY PO. 9:


16 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this Interiogatory to the extent that it

17 re4luests information protected by the attorney work product doctrine and attorney-client

18 privilege. This Interrogatory is the subject olexpert witness investigation and maybe answered

9 at the lime such expel-I wiuess investigation is appropriately disclosed pursuant to Court Order

10 and the Code ofCivil Procedure.

21 SPECLALINTERROGATORYNO. 10:

22 For the years 1990 to the present, please staLe each year that you conlend there was an

23 overdraft of the Basin.

24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAl. TNTERROGTORY NO.10:

25 Ihe District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

26 though expressly set lörth herein. The District objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it

27 requests infonnation protected by the attorney work product doctrine and attorney-client

2S privilege. This Interrogatory is the subject ofcxpcrt witness investigation and may be answered

ROSMOND COMMUNItY SERVICES DISTRICTS RESPONSES TO REBECCA LEE WILLIS FIRST SET OFSPECIAL INTERROGAlORIES

I at the time such expert witness investigation is appropriatcly discloscd pursuant to Court Order

2 am! the Cutle c,f Civil Procedure. Witboul waiving [lie foregoing cilijeetions. the Rasin has been

3 in an ovcrdraft since at least 1946.

4 SPF.CTAY. TNTERROGATORY NO. 11

5 For each and every year since 1999 that you contend there was an everdrafl ofthe Basin,

6 state the amount of ovcrdraft.

7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL TNTERROGATORY NO. II:

S The District incorporates herein its PrelirniiTary Statement and General Objections as

9 though expressly set forth herein. The District objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it

10 requests inlbrrnation protected by the attorney work product docthne and attorney-client

Ii ptivilege. This InieTrogalory is the subject of experi witness investigation and may be answered,

- . -

12 at the time snch expert witness investigation is appropriately disclosed pursuant to Court OrderI) aJ D Z

I 3 and the Code ofC,vil Procedure.

14 SPECIALINTERROCATORYNO. 12;

I 5 For each and every year that you contend there was an ovcrdrali ot thc Basin, identily

16 each and every person thai you believe pumped gi-orindwater from the Basin in excess ofthe safe

17 yield of the Basin.

15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

19 The Disirici iiicorpomtes herein its Preliminary Statenient and General Objedions as

20 though expressly set forth hn-ein. The responding party, District, does not have knowledge

21 stifficient to respond filly to this Interrogatory afer making a good faith offort to obtain the

22 inFormation by inquiry to the State ofcalifomia Department o[Waier Resources (DWR”). It

23 has records ofcertain woundwater pumping in the Basin. mid the District objects under Code of

24 Civil Procedure Section 2030.220, subdMsion (C), because the inbnnation requesied is equal]y

25 available to die propounding party from the DWR. It has restricted aneess to the records or

26 otherwise imposed confidentiality requirements regarding their use. Withoni waiving the

27 foregoing ohjeciiuns the Disttici has niale and will make these records available subject to the

25 propounding party’s agreement to honor L}WR confidentiality requests. Additionally. the County

ROSAMOND (:OMMIJNITv SERVICRS DISTRICT’S RItSPONSF.S TO REBECCA LF WIlLIS FIRT SET OFSPECLL iNTERROGATORiES

I of Kern has records of well penhiils issued IhrougboLit Kern County, and the District Further

2 objects tinder Code ofCivil Procedure Section 2030.220, subdivision (C), because the information

3 requested is equa]ly available to (lie propounding party From the County of Kern. The District

4 further responds that there are persons and entities alteady identified as panics who have pumped

5 groundwater from the Basin. Finally, the District objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that

6 it is burdensome and oppressive.

7 SPECIAL IPTERROGATORY PO. 13:

S Slate the amount you contend to be the safe yield of the Basin for the years 1990 to the

9 presenl as he term is. used in paragraph 30 ofyoar cross-complaint.

10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO- 13;

‘I The District incorporates herein its Freliminan Statement and General Objections as

12 though expressly set forth heroin. The District objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it

13 requests information prolected by the atlomey work product cloctnne and atftimey-clieiil

OH . . - . - -

14 privilcgc. This interrogatory is the subject of export wit,aess investigation mid ‘nay be answered

15 at the lime such expert ‘vi (ness inveatigalion is appropñately disclosed pursuant 10 Cotirt Order

16 and the Code of Civil Procedure.


IS IfYOU contend that YOU have any con-elalive hghts to the use of groundwaler in (he

19 Basin, state each and every fact in support ofyour contention.

20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY PO. 14:

21 The Disirici incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement aid General Objections.

22 Assuming the Request concerns correlative overlying nghts, the Disincl does not contend ii has

23 such riehts except for County landscaping, park and other recreational uses.

24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO- IS:

25 IfYOU contend that YOU have any correlative rights to the usc ofgrcundwater in the

26 Basin. state the quantity of such Tighls

27 RESPOSL TO SPECIAL INTERROGAtORY NO. 15;

25 The District incorporates herein its Prclinminarv Statement and General Objections. TheS

ROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICES msrmcTs RESPONSES TO REBECCA LEE WILLIS’ FIRST SET OFSPECIAL ircrER]4OGA•rORIES

I District objects to this hitenogatory to the extent it seeks infonnation protected by the attorney

2 work product doctrine. Waiving the foregoing objections, and assuming the Request concerns

3 eonelaove overlying nghls the Distnct uses a nominal amount of waler.

4 SPECIAL INTERROGKIORY PO. 16:

5 IFYOU contend that YOI.J have any appropriative ights to the usc oigroundwater in the

6 Basin, state each and even’ fact in support of your contention.


8 The District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Obcctions as

9 though expres5ly set forth herein- The Oisthct maintains records showing the quanti yaf

10 woundwater pumped for municipal and industrial uses. A compilation, absact, auditor

II summary oftlmc District’ s records is nccessary in order to answer the Interrogaton’; no such

12 compilation is presently known to exist; and the burden ofexpense orpreparing or making it

13 would be substantially the same for an inteirogating party as for the District. The Distnct has

14 pumped grotmdwator since 966. Pursuant to Codc ofuivil Procedure Scction 2030.230, a

IS response to this Interrogatory may also be ascertained from the records identified in Exhibit I

16 attached hereto.


18 lfYOU contend that YOU have any appropriative nghts to the use ofgroundwater in the

19 Basin, state the quantity ofsuch rigtts.


21 The District incorporates herein ]ts Preliminary Statenient and General Objections as

22 thonah expressly set forth herein. •l’he Distmict maintains records showing the quantity of

23 groundwatcr pumped br municipal and indtistrial uses. A compilation, abstract, audit or

24 summary ofthe District’s records is necessary in order to answer the Interrogaton’; no such

25 compilation is presently known to exist; and the burden oCexpensc ofpreparing or making it

26 would he substantially the same for an interrogating party as for the District. The District has

27 pumped groundwater sinec 1966. Pursuant to Code ofcivil Procedure Section 2030.230, a

28 response to this Interrogatory maybe ascertained from the records identi hed in Exhibit I attached

ROSAMOND c:O1MuNrry SERVICES DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO REBECCA LEE WILLiS’ FIRST SET OFSI’In:IAI. INTItRRC)c;ATORI KS

I hereto.

2 SPECTALINTERROGATORYNO. lS

3 If YOU contend that YOU have acquired prescriptive rights to usc groundwater within (he

4 Basin as against the Willis Class. p]ease state each and every fact in support of your contention-

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. IS:

6 The District incorporates heroin its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

though expressly set for herein. The District objects to this Inteirogatory because it does not seek

8 infbmia(ion for the Phase 2 tnal nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discover ol

9 admissible evidence for the Phase 2 trial. Tho Court has directed tlic panics to Icus their

10 discovery rcquests upon the subject matter cithe Phase 2 trial. Without waiving heforegoing

II objections, thc District responds (hat it has punipecl oundwater from the Basin since 1921 and

12 (he Basin has been in an overrirafi since at least 1946. The District further responds that it will

13 further supplement its response to this lntcrrogatory at a reasonable time after the Phase 2 bial.

14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19

15 IfYOU contend that YOU havo any prescriptive rights to the use oI’grornudwater in the

16 Basin, statc the quantity oFsucb rights.


18 The District incorporates hcrcin its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

19 though expressly set for herein. The District objects to (his Tnlen-ogalory because it does not seek

20 nlbrmation For the Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

21 admissible evidence for the Phase 2 trial. The Court has dircctcd the parties to focus their

22 discovery requests upon thc subject matter oithe Phase 2 trial. Without wriving the foregoing

23 objections, the Disinot responds that it has pumped oundwater from the Basin since 1966, the

24 Basin has been in an overdrafl since at Icast 1946, and the District has pumped groundwater in the

25 amounts shown in District records. A compilation, absflct. auditor summary of the District’s

26 records is necessary in order to answer the Interrogatory; no such compilation is presently known

27 to exist; and the burden olexpense ofpranng or making it would lie substantially the same for

28 an inten-ogating party as for the Dustiict. Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedurc Section 2030.230.

— tosfoSi, COMMLJNI IVSE.RVI( I.S DISTRI( T’S RITSPONSES TO RrUFCCA I EF VILLiS FIRST SET OFSPECIAL iNTERROGATOmES

I a response ía this Tntemgatory may be ascertained from the records ider,Ii lied in Exhibit I

2 attached hereto. The District further responds (hat ii wi’ further 5 upplement its response to this

3 Interrogatory at a reasonable time after the Phase 2 trial.

4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY PO. 20:

5 If YOU contend that YOU have acquired a prescriptive right to use groundwater within

6 (he Basin. when was that prescriptive right acquired?

7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20;

The District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

9 though expressly set for herein. The Disthct objects to this Interrogatory hecause ii does not seek

10 nfomia(ion for the Phase 2 tnal nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

II admissible evidence for the Phasc 2 trial. The CoLirt has directed the panics to focus their

12 discovery requests upon the suhjeeI matter ofthe Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the bregoing

I 3 objections, the District responds that it has pumped groundwaler from the Basin since 1966 and

14 the Basin has been in an overdraft since aI least ‘946. The Distaict Thither responds that it will

15 Further supplemenl its response to this Interrogatory at a reasonable time alier the Phase 2 trial.

16 Without waiving the foregoing objections, the Dislricí first acquired a prescriptive right five yeats

I? after pumping groundwater from (he Basin in its overdraft condition, the right has continued and

IS continues (0 (he present íirne.


20 If YOU contend that YOU have any prescnptive rights to the use ofgroundwatcr in the

21 Basin. state when the live year prescriptive period commenced.

22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.21

23 Ihe District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

24 though expressly set for herein. The District objects to this Tnterroga(ory because it does not seek

25 information for the Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ol

26 admissible evidence fbr the Phase 2 thaI. lie Court has directed the parties to fi,cus their

27 discovery requests upon the subject matter o[the Phase 2 thaI. Without waiving the foregoing

28 objections, the District respends that it has pumped groundwater froni the Basin since 1966 andII

ROSAMONP COMMUNITY SERVICES UiSiIU S IIK.SI’ONSFS TO REBECCA lEEWILUS! FIRST SLF ()ysPECIAl. INrERR0GATOmES

I the Rasin has been iii an overdrafl since at least I 94& The Di strict ftuther responds that it will

further supplement its response to this Interrogatory at a reasonabLe rime a [tar the Phase 2 nal.

3 Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District 1 rst ucqul r([ a prescnptive right five yea’s

4 after pumping groundwater from the Basin in i t ,verd[aft condition wFiiclt is to later, the gliI

5 has corIminLied and continues to the present time.

SPFCIAI. INTERROGATORY NO, 22:

7 IC ‘r’0L1 contend that all groLLnd ater YOU have pumped Iron’ within he Basil ‘as been

S a a rasarae bcesid ::s a. r,!eae dcc r1x aU usts or :Fa TLdwae,.

-) RESPONSE TO SPECIAI INtERROGATORY NO. 22:

Tie Jfsthc: i-ccc-rr bctciri :5 F.err:rarv SIa:ej•eI and Gcrerl thjar:er as

JjgJ expressly sa: fcr tcr-cit. The D- s:ri or cr-ec:s Ic his ln:crngaIor because ii des to: seek

1 iterrrroo br he Pl-ae jia rio: is :t reasonaoiv C a aed In leJ to ::e d:sceverv of

I I azrisS’2e eudelKe for tte ?tase 2 ,ial The C’-r: has iirec:ec the pal::es to fecus ‘her

14 discover re-quests upon the subject matter of die Phase 2 trial- Wilhoitt ai vi rig the foregoins

S o’ex’ors. l- Disc-ct res-rr.d as fol*ws: The Dist-xI ruirips set:idwater to supIv its

O cas:omers w± watc-r r :rc’r resoecli’ e -t-L-ucipal and ixts:r:aI Lse5 rio DEnier m:nta:ns

I? ft-cares SEIOw:rs the ca II::voro-.u:Cwa:er trrtzcc or rii.riiclria and rcic,ial uses A

IS uvr,,, heor. 2hetracl, a:j:t C, surrr.an 31 he Di tr;cC’ rem. d is I:ecessarv order cc ans.e

14 tie I’Iterop.ton: to 9:cn coji1rC:cr m preser.v Ic-ic;,-,- ex:s:.amd fur Lrden afe-perse ef

2 ,rearing or matte ii wouhl be ,abscar :- a Lv the sanc :‘or a:; i:ttcroaIi rig par-\ as rrr lie

21 DISTJiet. Purniani to Code of C]vjl Pjoc.eurc Sc-ct,on 20311 23 it TespoT]se tt thiS Interrocalory

22 iiuv he ascerwined from the records idcntr ii e.d iii Fxbr hit ] allcJ,ed hereto.

23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23;

24 State each and every fact in support ol your c.urilent,on t]iM OL have pumped

25 groundwater from the Basin by rirea ‘onable extaction as IJcgcd in parigTaph 37 of your cross

2f, coniplainL


28 The District incorporates herein its Preliminary Statemeni md General Objections as11

ROS4MOND COMMUNiTY SERVICES DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO RrBE(CA LL WILLIS FIRST ST OFSPECIAL iNTERROGA[ORI KS

I though expressly set for herein. The Distct objects to this Interrogatory because It does not seek

2 infi,mialion Fur the Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

3 admissible evidence for lhe Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to focus their

4 discovery requests upon the subject matter of the Phase 2 Inal. Without waiving the foregoing

5 objections, the Disinct responds as follows: The Distiict pumps oundwater to sapply its

6 customers with water for their respective municipal and industrial uses. The District rnmnhins

7 reconls showing the quantity of groundwater pumped for municipal and industrial uses. A

8 compilation, abstract, audit or summary cftlie District’s records is uecessaTy in order to answer

9 the Interrogatory; no such compilation is presently known to exist; and the burden ofexpense of

10 prepaHng or niing it would be substantially (he same For wi interrogating pafly as for the

11 Districl. Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure Section 2030.230, a response to this Interrogatory

12 may be ascertained from the records identified in Exhibit 1 attached hereto.


14 Stale each and every fact in support ofyour contention that you have used all groundwater

15 that you have pumped from the Basin for reasonable and beneficial purposes as alleged in

16 paragraph 37 ofyour cross-complaint.


18 The District objects to this linerngatory because it does not seek information for the

19 Phase 2 tñal nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for the

20 Phase 2 tTial. The Court has directed the parties to focus their discovery requests upon the subject

21 matter ofthe Phase 2 thaI. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the Distnct responds as

22 1oIIos’s: The District pumps groundw ter to supply its castomcrs with water for their respective

23 municipal and intlustTial uses. The District maintains records showing the qtLantity of

24 groundwater pumped for municipal and industrial uses. A compilation, abstract, audit or

25 suimnary ci the District’s records is necessary in order to answer the fnen-ogatory; no such

26 compilation is presently known to exist and the burden ofexpensc ofpreparing ormaking it

27 would he substantially the same for an iaterrogating party as for the District. Pursuant to Code of

28 Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, a respense to this Interrogatory may he ascertained from tIme13

ROSAMONI) COMMLIN1fl SERVICES DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO Rr;BKC:CA LEE WILLIS’ FIRST SET OFSPECIAL INTERROGATOmES

I records identified in Exhibit I attached herelo.

2 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 25:

3 SLate each and every fact in stqport of your con(ention thaL OIJ have pumped or used

4 oundwarcr from thc Basin anther a claim ofrighr as a[Icgcd in paragraph 3? of your cross-

5 complain.

6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL TNTERROGATORY NO. 25;

Tho Disrnct objects to this biterrogaorv 6CCOLLSC it does nor sco in urm (‘In R’r (lie

ix .; re-r_.ora:* a:ci;ia:ec :o lu 1w try ‘I’ is• Ke ev:deroe for fl

Plae ‘ll:e Lar aas ..trcieJ I e-’-•Iie;.7 :Qç.J •J-eE -5covefl• T±qresls UpO-1 I

ma-ler ofnc use 2’-iai w:I.ut -th: l:1e forec.,Lr.m ohe:ioas. jo D:sir:oi ns,tr.c as

I Icilaws Tte Disirct p-rr rur,Cwator to s:iDpiv is o:is:omc,s “it \4 lICE .W ncr respeclive

I niLnicipa and bdustr:a uos. The D:SLT: rnai,tiwis rcc,ds *r,;r-rn J:e :uartirv of

3 oucdwarcr ump’-’3 br r rc_al and I-c-Js:ia ues A cornpiaIior. ab:raci. aLdil Cr

‘4 simlmarv ii’ the Disuict’ s records is nccessaxv in crder answer (hr liHcuguturv; no such

I 5 co:iipilation :3 proarIv kror exs:: arc! the Euiden ofexpeuse ofpropariri2 Cr making;:

6 we&d he srzs:an:EzIa the rle for am iatcrro€ating parxv as or ire D:nr:. Parsu4i:: to Code a:

— Ci Pro:edure Section 2,:u23q. a resjxrse 5’ tua lrteTog.to:y Fray be aJeiaia<U from t:

S reco rcts :dexn ij ii FxhE’: I c:caed hereto

SPFCFAI. TNTERROGATORV NO. 26:

‘1 Stale each and vory Fact in .cuppoii of your coJ]WJ)Iiofl lb,, \IJL: hava pimipod or

22 grnundwaior from the Bas]rI in an “actual’ fl]aJuicr as aI]cgcd In pardgraph 37 1 your crnss

23 fMmiplamt.

14 RESPONSE To SPECTAT, INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

25 The Distnct objects to this Tnterrogatoi-y because ii does not seek intonnalion for tim

26 Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to load to the discovcrv of ad’i’i &sihle evidence for the

2? Phasc 2 trial. The Court has dircct thc parties to locus (heir discovery requests upon the subject

28 matter of the Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing objections. the District rospotids as14

— kösA lO I) C CrnIMUISIT\ SERWCES DIS ERiC 1 S RTh srE)Nsrs TO Rf BFrr4 I EF ILLIS’ FIRST SET OFSPECIAl.. INTERROGATORIES

bile ws: The Di stri c pumps oundw a.rcr to supply its customers vi th water br their respective

2 municipal and industrial uses. The DistHct mainlains records showing the quanlitv of

3 groundwater ptrniped For municipal and industrial uses. A compilation. abstract, audit or

4 summaiyof the District s records is necessary in order to answer the Interrogatory; no such

5 compilation is presently known to exist; and the burden ofexpense ofpreparing or making it

6 would be substantially the same for an interrogating party as hr the District. Pursuant to Code of

7 Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, a response to this InteiTogatory may be ascertained from the

8 records identified in Exhibit I altached hereto.

9

10 SPECIAl, INTERROGATORY NO. 27:

II State each and every lact in stiliport of your contention that YOU have pumped or uscd

12 groundwater from the Basin in an !!Open!! manner as alleged in paragraph 37 ofyour cross-

13 complaint

14 RESPONSE TO SPECTAT. TNTERROCATORY NO. 27;

15 The District objects to this Interrogatory because it does not seek infonnalion for the

16 Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to die discovery ofadmissible evidence for the

I 7 Phase 2 trial. The CorLrt has directed the panics to focus their discovery requests upon the subject

18 niatler of the Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the Foregoing objections, the Distnct responds as

19 follows: The District pumps groundwater to supply its customers with water for their respective

20 municipal and industrial uses. The Disbict maintains records showing the quantity oF

21 groundvaIerpumped for municipal and industrial uses. A compilation> abstract, auditor

22 smmnary ofthe Districfs records is necessary in order to answer the hten’ogatory; no such

23 compilation is presently known to exist; and the burden ofexpense ofprepadng or waking it

24 would be substantially the same for an intenogating party as for the District. Pursuant te Code ut

25 Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, a response to this Interrogatory nay he ascertained from the

26 records idenbfied in Exhibit I attached hereto.

27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28;

28 State each and every fact in support ofyour contention that you have pumped or used15

ROSAMONO COMMI,vIn SFRVICES OISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO REBECCA LE WILLIS’ FIRST SKT OFSPECI AL j NI K RItoc; A [OR I KS

I groundwater from the Basin in a !!flotonous! maimer as alleged in paragraph 37 ofyour cross-

2 complaint.

3 RESPONSE To SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:

4 The District objects to this Inteivogatory because it does not seek in[hniiation for the

5 Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to ]ead lo the discovery of admissible evidence for the

6 Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to focus thcir discovery requests upon the subject

7 matter ofthe Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the Disthct responds as

S follows: mc District pumps groundwater to . upply its customers with water for their respective

9 municipal and industrial uses. The District maintains records showing the quantity of

10 groundwater pumped for ‘muticipal and industrial uses. A compilation, abstract, aLldit or

1 summary of the District’s records is necessary in order to answer tile Inten-ogatory; no such

12 compilation is presently kno’ to exist; and the burden ofexpense of preparing or making it

13 would be substantially the same for an interrogating party as lbr the DistrieL Pursuant to Code of

14 Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, a response to this Interrogatory may be ascertained from the

15 records identified in Exhibit I attached hereto.


I? State each and even fact in support ofyour contention that YOU have pumped or used

IS water from the Basin in an !!exclusivc maimer as alleged in paragraph 37 ofyour cross-

19 complaint.


21 The District objects to this Interrogatory because it does not seek information for the

22 Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence for the

23 Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the panics to focus their discovcryrcquests upon the subject

24 matter ofthe Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District responds as

25 follows: The District pumps groundwater to supply its customers with water for their respective

26 inuiiicipal anti industhal uses. The District maintains records showing the quantity of

27 groundwater pumped for municipal and indusJ uses. .4 compilation, abstract, audit or

28 stmimarv of the Districts records is necessary iii order to answer the Interrogatory; no such

ROSAMONLI cor’lrwuNr’-v SKiflhi(:r,S DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO REBECCA LEE WILLIS’ FIRST Sn nivSPECIAL NTEI(ROGAIORI KS

I cor’ipilatton is presenily known to exist; arId the bunion of cxpcrtsC ci prepanng or niakr’g it

would be substantially the same for all interrogating party a For tbr flstnct. Pursuant to Code of

Civil Procedure Section 20311230. a isponse to this tntcr[oatorv ‘nay be ascertained torn he

4 records identified in Exhibit 1 attached hereto- The Di ‘(oct pump-i gfliLLlkIWater to supply its

5 ctisrariiers will’ water icr llieir respective munrc’p] and u,dustrial i.’ses.

6 SPFCIAI. FNTF.RROGATORV O, 30:

State each d every fact in support ] I your cunteitt’oii that YOU have pumped or ‘sod

walor rort tc Bass nt a cm::rurLs rr.aJn-wr “legec a 2ara?r 3’? : Ctr flrC&!

9 Cortpla’:?

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 70:

II The Distr:ct cbitts Ic tins Thterrigzto:’ *caIe ;: ,frrs r.o: seek :nfen:Mion for t

:2 Pias- 2 na ra- is re---av cacuiaec to cad to he d:seavcn f aTis;iblc ev:derwe Er lie

5 liase 2 triaL The (or us d:rectcil Ic parties to !&-us: Ie:r Isco civ raesls cIa the subjes:

14 ‘nailer ofthc- Phase 2 trial- Williout wai’irIg [lie foregoing objections, the District responds as

Ii iii ow s: TI-c - STL parr- grcur.dwater Ic sipot :5 ci:omen I :h wale for :leir respec::ve

‘0 n:jucipai and indusrxal us:-s- Lie D:strar: r.ai-Ihi-ls reorcs nowrg the quaritin of

I? raJrr.watc-r pum-,ed icr rarc:pal and udustr:a. uses A cO:I.,ibflcr. abst,scr. 2UCIL Or

I >LnIflIav O.e Dsriir s eccrd is r2(es r;::loce 0 aIsw C; :hc IlIeroz!Eon; K’ SjC2

‘I ccrlp: atiot s ,rese,tlv how ocxs:; rd tl-t *-deq ci nn-se 0 pFeari Cr rnakinc it

10 woj ti b sus:ania Iv te ne f— rr? i Iterosatag pain as So: the ft rriet. Parsuan: to Code o1

2] C,’•i] Pnbcedure Section 2030.230, a response to this LlIcrroutorv may he ncrIinntl from ihe

22 recL,rlIs ideiiti fled in Exhibit I attached hereto. The Di strict pumps ou,idwater to supply is

13 cuslorners with waler ftw their respective mrn],r-ipa] and jjiduslrja] uses.

24 SPECIAL INtERROGATORY NO.31,

25 State each and every fact in support ofyour c.oi]tcnhioxl Illl YOU hove pnmped or used

26 water from the Basin in ai4 “uninterniptcd” maimer ic, alleged ii, paTugTaph 3) ofyour cross-

27 complaint

28

ROSAMOND COMMUNIlY SKRYI(r.s DISTRICTS RESPONSES TO REFECCA LEE WILLIS rIasr SFTOFSPECIAL INiERROCAlOhIl KS

I RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGAtORY NO.31;

2 The 1)’stiict objects to this Interrogatory because it dues nut sk [F I om1at]on Ru the

3 Phase 2 trial riot is it reasonah]y calculated to lead to the dL5cC eeL 1 ad,ti,ssthle evidence for thc

4 F’hase 2 tsial- The Court has directed the parties to focus heir dLsc,wery rcLLCSLS upon the subject

5 matter o [the Phase 2 tial - Without waivuig the Forego] rig (mE,J ectIous, the D[sct responds as

Ic I Ius: Thc Disthct pumps goundwater to supply its custemer with water Ir their respective

7 municipal and indt’strinl uses. Tue District maLn(atns records sb,’ I hg ‘lie qualiti ill of

S ercimdtvar urnp.d Ru mLruma. am) -rdj,:r Lae. A uk-np: aUr.n, thsirac:. au:I or

9 s 0: I-c Th>i—czs re-us :s ne-cesrv ii: erer arsu the lrtcro:aIerv: r nI

0 cov.pi Ie::on is pre5etr* ua to ex:s:: ,:x h:;::i a: cpc,:se ol r ‘area or nai-w a

xoiid be st:bstan_ aZv h: same for Jr. ilterrcca:;r2 ,Jr:y s tnT hr E)isl-u I. PtYRJaE to CcJe o:

1 Civi Pracenrc See!isi 21:3;J Ca response to th:s L,Ierriga:on- may be aseeramcJ tram the

I 3 e:nrds Sertuied ja Exib:: attached l,crzo


:5 FVOU contend tin any prozert ovnor in tie W:Ths (Zas had rmal rwti:- list ‘aur

use -atte troua wa:er was av.n to heir rcit to u ne oard’-]t:er :lder:ktlg their

1’ prcre,n.p easc idevti* el- d ever suci plrDertv owrtr

l RFSPO\SE TO SI’kCIAL L’%TERROGATORY NO. 32:

I 9 rite jistre: cjccrs :o bis htcmgr-.tor’ twcs-nt dat, ia seek ,rjor.’:at:oa for the

2o Phse 2 ra1 nor is I: rtr:v zaculuted to e2 to Inc discc;,-v C .iJtti: tsibie eidence ar tnt

2’ Phase 2 inal. The foul has directed the pmlies to focus their dm sCOcry rLnjUcSIa upon Ih nibleet

22 maIler ofihe Phase 2 trial.

23 SPECIAL INTERROG4TORY NO. 33:

24 If YOU contend that any property owner in he Willis Cuss had ct’jaI police that your

25 usc of the gmundwater was adverse to their right to use the gxoundwritcr underlying their

26 property please state each and every fact in support ofvo,ir ct,nlrnhion.


The Disinci objects to this Intentgatory because it does not seek inbrmation for the[8

ROSAMONI) COMr.TUNIrV SKRVICF.S DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO REBECCA LEE WILLIS FIRS1SLi OFSPECIAL INTERROGATOIOES

Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to Icad to the discovcry of admissible cvidence for the

2 Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to Focus heir discovery requests upon the subject

3 matter of the Phase 2 jal. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District maintains

4 records showing thc quantity olgroundwater pumped Rir municipal and indusrnal uses- A

5 compilation, abstract, audit or summary of the District’s records is necessary in ordei to answer

6 the Interrogatory; no stich compilation is presently known to cxist; and the harden ofexpense of

7 preparing or making ii would he substantially the same for an interrogating party as for the

DistijeL Pursuant to Code ofCiviI Procedure Section 2030.230. a response to this interrogatory

9 may be ascertained fiom the rccords identified in Exhibit 1 atlached hereto.


II IfYOTJ contend that any property owner in the Willis Class had actual notice that your

12 use of the wouudvater was adverse to their right to use the groundwater underlying theirøiiJDzuJ—JE - -

13 property, please describc each WRITING which stLpports that contention

14 RESPONSE TO SPECJAJ., INTERROGATORYNO. 34.auJ- .. - - - - -

15 Ihe District objects to this Interrogatory because it does not seek infomiation for the

16 Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidcncc for thc

I? Phase 2 tnal. The Court has directed the panics to focus thcir discovery rcqtiests upon the subject

IS matter ofthe Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District maintains

19 records- showing the quantity ofgroundwater pumped for municipal mid industrial uses- A

20 compilation, abstract, audit or summar ofthe District’s records is necessary in order to answer

21 the Interrogatory; no such compilation i.s presently known to exist; and the burden ofexpense of

22 pi-eparing or making it woLild he substantially the same for an mnteirogating party as for the

23 District. Pursuaiit to Code ofCivil Procedure Scction 2030-230, a response to this Interrogatory

24 may ho ascertained from the records identiFied in Exhibit I attached hereto.


26 lfYOU contend that any property owner in the Willis Class had consfluctive notice that

27 )IOLff use ofthe groundwatem- was adverse to their right to use tlmc groundwater underlying their

28 property, please identify each and every such propcrty owner-19

ROSAMOND CO1MUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO REBECCA LEE WilLiS FII{ST.SF.T (‘ITslLt:IAL IN[KRItOGAIORII-:s

I RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

2 The Di stTict objects to this Interrogatory because it does not seek information for the

3 Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery oF admissible evidence for the

4 Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to focus their discovery requests upon tim subject

matter ofthe Phase 2 trial. Without waiving the foregoing objections, the District maintains

records showing the quantity ofgroundwaterpwnped for municipal and industhal uses. A

7 compilation, abstract, audit or summary of the District’s records is necessary in order to answer

the Interrogatory; no such compilation is presently known to exist; and the harden ofexpense of

9 preparing or making it would he substantially the same for an interrogating party as for the

10 District. Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure Section 2030.230, a response to this Intorrogatory

Ii may be ascertained from the records identified in Exhibit I attached hereto.-, ‘0

12 SPECIALINTERROGATORYNO.36:I’, w zuJaJe . . ,.

13 II OU contend that any property owner in the Willis Class had constntctivc notice that

14 your use ofthe groundwater was adverse to their right to use the groundwater u]ider]ying their

5 property, please state each anti every fact in support of your contenhon.

16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36,

17 The District objoets to this Interrogatory because it does not seek information for the

18 Phase 2 trial nor is II reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence lbr the

19 Phase 2 trial. Additionally. the answer to this Interrogatory is the subject oltestimony which has

20 not yet beet’ filly developed. Finally, the Court has directed the parties to focus their discovery

21 requests upon the subject matter ofthe Phase 2 thaL Without waing the foregoing objections,

22 lie District maintains records showing the quantity ofgroundwater pumped For niaiicipal and

23 industrial uses. A compilation abstract, audit Or summary of the District’s records is necessary in

24 order to answer the Interrogatory; no such compilation is prcsontly known to exist; and the but-den

25 ofexponso ofprcparing or making it would he substantially lie same fermi interrogating party as

26 Rir the Disthct Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure Section 2030.230. a response to this

27 Interrogatory maybe ascertained from the records identified in Exhibit 1 attached hereto.

282(1

ROSAMOND cOItJNrrv SERVICES DISTRIC:Ts RKSPONSItS TI) Rr.IIF,cCA lEE WtLLtS FmST SET OFSPECIAL INTERROCAT0mES

I SPECIAL. INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

2 IfYOU contend that any property owner in the Willis Class had constrLictive nouce that

3 your use ofthc groundwater was adverse to their right to use the groundwater underlying their

4 property, please identify and describe cad’ WRITING which supports that contention.

5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL TNTERROCATORY NO. 37:

6 The District objects to this Interrogatory because it does not seck information br the

7 Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for the

S P1,asc 2 trial. The Court has d]rected the parties to focus their discovery requests upon the subject

9 matter oFthe Phase 2 Ijial.

10 SPECIAL LNTERROGArORY NO. 3S:

11 If YOU contend that YOU have med a Notice ofExiraction as required by California

12 Water Code sections 4999 to 5009 for each year since 1955 that you have extracted more than 25

13 acre-feet of groundwater from the Basin, please identi tz and describe each WRITflNG that

14 supports that contention.

15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38,

16 The District objects to th]s Interrogatory because it does not seek infoimation for the

17 Phase 2 trial nor is it reasonably caleulted to lead to the discovery ofadmissible ovidenee for the

18 Phase 2 trial. The Court has directed the parties to focus their discovery requests upon the subject

19 matter ofthe Phase 2 trial. Finally, the District objects under Code ofcivil Procedure Section

20 2030.220, subdivision (C), because the infonnation requested is equally available to the

21 prnpounding party from a public cntiw. the State ofCalifomia. Without waiving the foregoing

22 objections, a compilation, abstract, audit or summary oftbe Districts records is necessary in

23 order to answer the Interrogatory; no such compilation is presontly known; and the burden of

24 expense ofpreparing or making it wou]d he substantially the same for an interrogating party as

25 br the D]stHet. Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure Section 2030.230, a response to this

26 Interrogatory may be ascertained from records in the District’s possession which ill be produced

27 for inspection and copying at a reasonable time and location.

2821

ROSAr,IOND(OMMIJNITV SERVICES DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO REBECCA LEE WILLIS’ liRsi srT OFS I’CIAL I sr an ROGAIf ) Ii IFS

I SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39:

2 If YOU contend that YOLI have filed a Notice oF Ex(ractü.. as repured by California

Water Code sections 4999 to OO9 for each year since ‘955 hat VOLL have exrncted morc than 25

4 acre-Feet of groundwater from the Basin, please state each and en act in sapport oF your

5 cotilenuon.

RESPOrSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39:

7 The District objects to this fnterroa(orv because it does not seek information [or the

S PItase1irL a Far IS It r.scraD- c:.uujka :t .ed to Ire a: server: 0: acrris ible ejscc ‘ar

9 Phas, 2 !na. The (cu—i Fas irec:e3 tie Darlie s to focus :lwir d: sLWfl req:as:s tp09 he sI’ect

G riatier of he phase 2 tha- Ital:v. the D.s:ri: cil octs :..]er CoIe ni C’ ii Pracet.jre Scien

I: 2 i,;P::)suivision ci. tcca:sc :F , cfllato— re.-jes:rd ;, ec-.j.:!v aviIaHe :o Ire

I 2 rropoardirtr pan :1-cm .r pablEc eu::’ the State of Caijenia ;cithei: waiving thu ibresroEn

I 3 clv e.xEcma comp:auier. abstract. audit or summary ofte nc: s iccuith is recessxn fl

14 order to answer the Interrogator’; no sac.ii compilation is pre,entiv known: and the burden ci

expense aPprq’ann Cr naijmg:t would be su tant;ah ,e sarrc In, ri r:erngw.:ng partY as

kr the D:nic:. Pursuam to Code of C : Procedure Se;liom 2j3’I.2.O. a rs,onse to trils

I:iterrogaic ma> he neern.iae from: records a tte D:nic: s possessi. Ireh I be rnt.ed

I br ,reci,oa and cop--rs at a raa::ae time and (‘CaIn

I) SPECIAL IVIERROGATORY NO. 40:

[dcnti c-icE and e-. em use ,wa:e: by any ar.owxr .r. ha BasEr bar VOc.9iiekI us

2’ made an unreasonable use of waler as you conlund in paraTaph U, i,{ 1ur Cros-Cornpiaini..

22 RESPONSE 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40;

23 mc District objects to this hiterrogatory bccausc ‘I does nul seek in bTmolion for the

24 Phase 2 thaI nor is it reasonably calculated to lead lo the discover’ of admissible cvidciice for the

25 Phase 2 trial. The Cowl has directed the pasties to Torus heir discovery requests upon the subject

20 matter of die Phase 2 trial. The District will agme to ftuljjer supplement its response to this

27 Interrogatory at a reasonable rime afler die Phase 2 trial.

2g22

ROSAMONOCOIMIJNITY SF.RVICES DISTRiCTS RESPOSES•i•O KLUCU& LEK WillIS FIRST SFtT OFSI’ECIA L ‘VIE II ‘U IGATOR IFS

I SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 41:

2 Please state the identity of each landowner in the Basin that YOU contend has made an

3 unreasonable use ci water From 1990 to present

4 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL IINTERI(OGATORV NO. 41:

5 The District incorporates herein Is Preliminary Statement and General Objections. The

6 Uvanct objects to this Interrogatory because it does not seek relevant evidence for the phase 2

7 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ol admissible evidence fbr the Pha5e 2

trial. The Disthct will agree to fre-Iher supplement its response W this bltmTogatory at a

9 reasonable time agreel on by the panics.


11 Please state the period oftinie that YOU contend each such landowner has wade an

I 2 unreasonable use ci water.


14 mc DsIñct incomorates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections. The

IS T)jstnct objects to this Interrogatory because it does not seek relevant evidence for the Phase 2

16 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead Ic the discovery of admissible evidence for the Phase 2

17 thaI. Additionally he answer to this interrogatory is the subject oftestirnony which has not yet

IS been fully developed. Ihe Disrrict will agree to further supplement its response to this

19 Interrogatory at a reasonable time agreed on by the parties.


21 IfYOU contend that any landowner in the Basin has made an unreasonable use oFwater,

22 please state the annual quantity ci such unreasonable use by each andowner.


24 The District ineoporates herein its Preliminary Statenienl and General Objections. The

25 Dmtnct objects to this Inteirogatery because it does not seek relevant evidence for die Phase 2

26 trial nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the d scovery of adnii ssible evidence for the Phase 2

27 trial. The Dstriet will agree lo further supplement its response to this Interrogatory at a

28 reasonable tune agreed on by the parties.13

- ROSAMOND CImISItJNITY SFRVICF.S DISTRICT’S RESPONSES TO REBECCA LEE WILIJS FIRSTSET OFSPECIAL NIERRO(AlORI ES

4

9

SPECI.4T, INTERROGATORY NO. 44;

the tha]

Identify by name and title each noncxpert witness you intend to call at the next phase F

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL TNTERROGATORY NO.44

The Distñct incorporates herein its Preliminary Statemcnt and General Objections as

though exprcss]y set forth heroin. The Distiiet objects 1° (his htem,gatory because it seeks

itibmialion protected by the atlonjey work product doctrine

IiI4IUIIL. UctNER.JIItkHY V. DUNJdSTEFANIE I). HEDLUTThAttorneys [hr DeFendantROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICESDIStRICt

2S24

ROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT’S RESPOSS ‘0 aBK(:CA LEK WILLIS’ I•IRST SFT OF

2

3

5

6

7

S

Dated: July 14, 2005 REST BEST KRIEGER LLP

a- aa-a-aOFzøLlJDZUJEQ,ccQc -O‘-

O—-

uJ

ma- —

By

10

12

13

14

IS

IS

17

‘S

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

SPI-:(:IAL INTItRROGATORIF,S

I PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, Kern V. Kecfe, declare:

3 I ani a resideili of the Siale of Cal]foniia and over the age of eighteen years, andnot a party to the within action my business address is Best Rest & Kheger LLP. 5 Park PIay.i

4 Suite 1500, Irvine, California 92614. On July 14, ZOOS. i servcd the within document(s):

5 ROSAMONO COMMUNTTV SERVICES DTSTRTCT RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFWILLIS’ FIHST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATOmES

6

7 by posting the document(s) listed above to the Santa Clara County Superior Court‘vebsite in regard to the Antelope Valley Groundwater matter.

9 Q by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereonfilly prepaid, in the United States mail at Irvine, California addressed as sd forth

10 below.

II Q by causing personal delivery by ASAP Corporate Services of the document(s)listed above to the person(s) at the addrcss(es) set forth below.

12

C by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the13 address(es) set forth below.

14 C — I caused such envelope to be delivered via overnight delivery addressed as

Is indicated en the attached service list. Stich envelope was deposited hr deliveryby Federal Express following ihe finn’s ordinary business prncüces.

16

I?aili readily familiar with the firms practice of collection and processing

IS correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it wottld be deposiled with the U.S. PostalService on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I

19 am await thai on motion oFthe party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellationdate or postage meter date is more than one day after dale oldeposit Ihr mailing in affidavit.

20I declare tiTider penalty ofpeijury under the laws of the State of California that the

21 above is tnie and correct.

22 Executed on July14, 2005, al Irvine. California.

- .

( KerryV.Kec

26

27

2825

ROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERvICES DiSTRICT’S RESPONSES 10 REBECCA LKE VILLtS, FIRSt Nfl OFSPECIAl, INI ERR(Ic;.4r0R1 Its

I BP.ST BEST & KRIF,GER TIP EXYMPT FROM FILING FEES ERIC L ... · I Defendant IZOSAMONI) COMMUNITY SF;RVICFS DISTRICT QT)istricl’) submits (he 2 following response to Special Interrogatones,

Documents