11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1100 1111 1122 1133 1144 1155 1166 1177 1188 1199 2200 2211 2222 2233 2244 2255 2266 2277 2288 2299 3300 entered in this case on November 3, 2009. In February of 2010, after the period for appeal hadexpired, certain previously hidden facts were brought to Petitioners’ attention. These factsindicated that crucial evidence had been withheld from Petitioners and the public. This evidencebore on the credibility and validity of the ridership and revenue modeling data contained in theEnvironmental Impact Report that was the subject of the case. (Declaration of Stuart Flashmanin Support of Petition for Writ of Error
[hereinafter, “Flashman Dec.”] ¶¶ 2-4.)Petitioners’ legal counsel immediately brought the matter to the attention of opposingcounsel, who promised to look into it. (
at ¶6.) In the meantime, Petitioners sought tosubstantiate the allegations that had been made and to clarify the significance of the withheldevidence. (
at ¶¶ 4-15.) Petitioners were able to confirm the accuracy of the allegations basedon documentation obtained through California Public Record Act requests
at ¶¶ 7-15.).Petitioners also verified the significance of the withheld evidence based on an independentconsultant’s evaluation. (Declaration of Norman Marshall in Support of Petition for Writ of Error
, ¶ 5.)Based on the substantiation of the veracity and significance of the information,Petitioners filed the Petition for Writ of Error
(“Petition”) now before the Courtand set the matter for hearing. Upon learning that Respondent intended to oppose the petition,Petitioners realized that it would be important to gain a better understanding of the facts andcontentions involved in the Petition than was possible through the limited scope of PublicRecord Act requests. In addition, Respondent indicated that it would not file a responsivepleading to the Petition, thus eliminating such a pleading as a source of information.On July 6, 2010, Petitioner Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund servedon Respondent, by mail and electronic mail, a set of discovery requests consisting of a set of form interrogatories, a set of twelve requests for admissions, and a set of fifteen speciallyprepared interrogatories. (Exhibit A to Supporting Declaration of Stuart Flashman.) On July 12,2010, Petitioner’s counsel received via electronic mail a “meet and confer” letter from counselfor Respondent indicating that Respondent did not intend to respond to the discovery requests.
Because the case was no longer pending before the Court, discovery was not available. (Codeof Civil Procedure §2017.010; Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Superior Court(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 728, 732.)