1 WM.

MATTHEW DITZHAZY
CITY ATTORNEY
2 CITY OF PALMDALE
3 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
A Professional Corporation
4 JAMES L. MARKMAN (43536)
jmarkman rwglaw.com
5 STEVEN R. ORR (136615)
sorr rw law.corn
6 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3101
7 Telephone: 213.626.8484
Facsimile: 213.626.0078
8
Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and
9 Cross-Defendant
CITY OF PALMDALE
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ATT ORNEYS AT LAW - APROFE SSIONAL COR PORAT ION

12 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

13
RI CHARDSIWATSO N

14 ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding

CASES. No. 4408
15
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST
16 SET OF SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES
17
Phase 5 Trial Date: February 10, 2014
7,00L. 18
Hon. Jack Komar
19
20 PROPOUNDING PARTY: ANTELOPE VALLEY-EAST KERN WATER AGENCY
21 RESPONDING PARTY: CITY OF PALMDALE
22 SET NO.: ONE
23
24 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ("C.C.P.") section 2030.010, the City of
25 Palmdale ("Responding Party" or "City"), hereby responds to Antelope Valley-East Kern
26 Water Agency's ("AVEK") First Set of Special Interrogatories as follows:
27
28 ///

Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories

P6399-1234\1646356v1 doc
 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS
2 1. Although Responding Party has conducted a good faith investigation in order
3 to respond to AVEK's First Set of Form Interrogatories, it has not completed its own
4 investigation or discovery of this matter. By responding to this discovery, Responding
5 Party does not intend to preclude itself from providing supplemental responses or from
6 using, at a trial or other proceedings, information that it obtains subsequent to the date of
7 these responses.
8 2. By these responses, Responding Party makes no representation concerning
9 the relevance or admissibility of any of the evidence cited, and further reserves the right to
10 make all pertinent evidentiary objections at trial or at any other stage of the proceedings.
11 3. Responding Party objects to each interrogatory to the extent it calls for
ATTOR NEYS AT LAW - APR O FE SSI ONAL CORP O RATI ON

12 information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine and
13 official information privilege.
14
15 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
17 Do YOU contend that YOU have the right to recapture or use the return flows
18 resulting from State Water Project water AVEK imports into the area of adjudication?
19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.!:
20 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
21 Statement and General Objections as though expressly set forth herein.
22 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
23 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
24 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."
25 The term "imports" is not defined and is vague and ambiguous as used in this
26 interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an assumption, that AVEK
27 imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory compound and ambiguous.
28 ///
-2-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1.doc
 1 Subject to the foregoing, the City does not presently purchase State Water Project
2 water from AVEK. As part of the Amargosa Creek Recharge Project, the City expects to
3 purchase such water, and will claim the right to recapture or use return flows therefrom.
4
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
6 Set forth all facts which support YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 1
7 above.
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
9 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
10 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
z 11 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
o
E_D 12 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, the right of
1.1.1 8
13 privacy or any other applicable privilege.
o 14 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
utt).-
15 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
v-)
(z) 16 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."
<
=
L.) 17 The term "imports" is not defined and is vague and ambiguous as used in this
E2
Pitt 18 interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an assumption, that AVEK
2rar,
19 imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory compound and ambiguous.
20 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
21 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
22 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
23 Subject to the foregoing, the City does not presently purchase State Water Project
24 water from AVEK. As part of the Amargosa Creek Recharge Project, the City expects to
25 purchase such water, and will claim the right to recapture or use return flows therefrom.
26
27 ///
28 ///
-3-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356vI doc
 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
2 Describe in detail all WRITINGS which support YOUR response to Special
3 Interrogatory No. 1 above.
4 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
5 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
6 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
7 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
8 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, the right of
9 privacy or any other applicable privilege.
10 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
11 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFE SSIONAL CORP ORATI ON

12 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."

13 The term "import" is not defined and is vague and ambiguous as used in this
14 interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an assumption, that AVEK
15 imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory compound and ambiguous.
16 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
17 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
18 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
19
20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
21 Do you contend that YOU have a right to return flows presently in the groundwater
22 which result from State Water Project water AVEK has imported into the area of
23 adjudication?
24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
25 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
26 Statement as though expressly set forth herein.
27 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
28 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
-4-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234 \ 1646356v I doc
 1 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."
2 The term "imported" is not defined and is vague and ambiguous as used in this
3 interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an assumption, that AVEK
4 imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory compound and ambiguous.
5 Subject to the foregoing, the City does not presently purchase water from AVEK.
6
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
8 Set forth the amount of return flows presently in the groundwater as the result of
9 State Water Project water AVEK has imported to which you claim a right of recapture or
10 use.
11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
12 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
13 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to
14 the extent the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-
15 client privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege.
RI C HARDS

16 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
17 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
18 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."
19 The terms "import" and "presently in the groundwater" is not defined and is vague
20 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
21 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
22 compound and ambiguous. The phrase "amount of return flows presently in the
23 groundwater" assumes the origin of each molecule of water can be identified.
24 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
25 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
26 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
27 Subject to the foregoing. The City does not purchase water from AVEK.
28 ///
-5-
Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1.doc
 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
2 Set forth all facts supporting your response to Special Interrogatory No. 5 above.
3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
4 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
5 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
6 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
7 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege.
8 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
9 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
10 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . . ."
11 The terms "import" and "presently in the groundwater" is not defined and is vague
12 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
13 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
14 compound and ambiguous. The phrase "amount of return flows presently in the
15 groundwater" assumes the origin of each molecule of water can be identified.
16 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
17 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
18 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
19 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable. The City does not purchase water from
20 AVEK.
21
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
23 Describe in detail all WRITINGS supporting your response to Special Interrogatory
24 No. 5 above.
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
26 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
27 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
28 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
-6-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1 doc
 1 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege.
2 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
3 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
4 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."
5 The terms "import" and "presently in the groundwater" is not defined and is vague
6 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
7 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
8 compound and ambiguous. The phrase "amount of return flows presently in the
9 groundwater" assumes the origin of each molecule of water can be identified.
10 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
11 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
ATTORNEYSATLAW - A PRO FESSI ONALCORPORATION

12 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.

13
14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
15 Have YOU pumped return flows from State Water Project water AVEK has
16 imported into the area of adjudication?
17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
18 Objections: The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply
19 with C.C.P. Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and
20 complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . . ."
21 The terms "import" and "presently in the groundwater" is not defined and is vague
22 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
23 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
24 compound and ambiguous.
25 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
26 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
27 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
28 Subject to the foregoing, no.
-7-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1.doc
 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
2 Set forth all facts supporting YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 8 above.
3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
4 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
5 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
6 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
7 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege.
8 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
9 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
10 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included. . . ."
11 The terms "import" and "presently in the groundwater" is not defined and is vague
ATTO RNEYSAT LAW - APROFESSIONAL C ORPO RATIO N

12 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
13 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
14 compound and ambiguous.
15 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
16 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
17 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
18 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable.
19
20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
21 Describe in detail all WRITINGS supporting YOUR response to Special
22 Interrogatory No. 8 above.
23 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
24 Objections: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary
25 Statement as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to the extent
26 the interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client
27 privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege.
28 ///
-8-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1 .doe
 1 The Responding Party objects to the interrogatory as it does not comply with C.C.P.
2 Section 2030.060(d), which provides: "Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and
3 of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . . ."
4 The terms "import" and "presently in the groundwater" is not defined and is vague
5 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. The interrogatory requires the adoption of an
6 assumption, that AVEK imports, which is improper, and it renders the interrogatory
7 compound and ambiguous.
8 This interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of
9 C.C.P. sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270 and work product in violation of C.C.P.
10 section 2018.020 and 2018.030.
11 Subject to the foregoing, this interrogatory is not applicable. Responding Party does
ATTORN EYSATL AW - APROFESSI ONAL CORPOR ATION

12 not purchase water from AVEK.

13
14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
15 Prior to January 18, 2006, did YOU participate in any communication with AVEK
16 regarding the right to use return flows from State Water Project water AVEK imports in to
17 the area of adjudication?
Pia 18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
19 Objections: vague and ambiguous as to "imports" and "any communication."
20 Irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of
21 relevant admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing, no.
22
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
24 Set forth all facts upon which YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 11 is
25 based.
26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
27 Objections: vague and ambiguous as to "imports" and "any communication."
28 Irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of

-9-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1.doc
 1 relevant admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party
2 responds as follows: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party did
3 not locate records reflecting communications between AVEK and itself regarding the right
4 to use return flows from the State Water Project.
5
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
7 Describe in detail all WRITINGS which support YOUR response to Special
8 Interrogatory No. 11.
9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
10 Objections: vague and ambiguous as to "imports" and "any communication."
11 Irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - APROFESSI ONAL CORPORATION

12 relevant admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing, not applicable.

13
14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
15 Have YOU ever attempted to recapture or use return flows from State Water Project
16 water AVEK has imported into the area of adjudication?
17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
;OW
18 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
19 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
20 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
21 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
22 further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "attempted to recapture or use return
23 flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as used
24 in this interrogatory.
25 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable. Responding Party does not purchase water
26 from AVEK.
27
28 ///

-1 0 -
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234 \ 1646356v1.doc
 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
2 Set forth all facts supporting YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 14.
3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
4 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
5 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
6 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
7 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
8 further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "attempted to recapture or use return
9 flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as used
10 in this interrogatory. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory because it
11 necessitates the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary from documents in
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PR OFE SSIONAL CORPO RATIO N

12 Responding Party's possession and such preparation would be similarly burdensome and/or
13 expensive to both the propounding and responding parties. (C.C.P. § 2030.230.)
14 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable. Responding Party does not purchase AVEK
15 water.
16
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
18 Describe in detail all WRITINGS which support YOUR response to Special
19 Interrogatory No. 14.
20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
21 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
22 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
23 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
24 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
25 further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "attempted to recapture or use return
26 flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as used
27 in this interrogatory. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory because it
28 necessitates the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary from documents in
-11-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234 \ 1646356v1.doc
 1 Responding Party's possession and such preparation would be similarly burdensome and/or
2 expensive to both the propounding and responding parties. (C.C.P. section 2030.230.)
3 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable. Responding Party does not purchase AVEK
4 water.
5
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
7 If YOUR answer to Special Interrogatory No. 14 is anything other than "yes,"
8 explain in detail the reason(s) why YOU have not attempted to recapture or use return flows
9 resulting from State Water Project water AVEK has imported into the area of adjudication.
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
11 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
ATTO RNEY SAT LAW - APROFESSIO NAL CORPORATION

12 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
13 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
14 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
15 further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "attempted to recapture or use return
16 flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as
17 incorporated in this interrogatory. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it
18 calls for the disclosure of information protected by the deliberative process privilege.
ar
19 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable. Responding Party does not purchase AVEK
20 water.
21
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
23 In any non-privileged WRITINGS YOU have prepared from 1974 to present
24 (excluding pleadings filed in this Action), have YOU stated that return flows from State
25 Water Project water AVEK imports into the area of adjudication is a source of water
26 available to YOU?
27 ///
28 ///
-12-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1 doc
 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
2 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
3 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
4 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
5 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
6 further objects to this interrogatory because the term "imports" is not defined and is vague
7 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory.
8 Subject to the foregoing, Responding Party is not aware of any responsive
9 documents.
10
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
ATTORN EYS AT L AW - A PROFES SIONALCORPORATI ON

12 If YOUR answer to Special Interrogatory No. 18 is anything other than an

13 unqualified "no," then describe in detail the WRITINGS wherein YOU stated that return
14 flows from State Water Project water AVEK imports into the area of adjudication is a
15 source of water available to YOU.
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
17 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
18 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
19 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
20 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
21 further objects to this interrogatory because the term "imports" is not defined and is vague
22 and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. Responding Party also objects to this
23 interrogatory because it necessitates the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or
24 summary from documents in Responding Party's possession and such preparation would be
25 similarly burdensome and/or expensive to both the propounding and responding parties.
26 (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.)
27 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable. Responding Party does not purchase water
28 from AVEK.

-13-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1.doc
 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
2 If YOUR answer to Special Interrogatory No. 18 is anything other than an
3 unqualified "yes," then explain in detail why WRITINGS prepared by YOU have never
4 stated that return flows from State Project Water AVEK imports into the area of
5 adjudication is a source of water available to YOU.
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
7 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
8 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
9 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
10 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.010(b).
11 Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory because the term "imports" is not
ATTORN EYSAT LAIN - A PR OFESSI O NALCOR PORAT ION

12 defined and is vague and ambiguous as used in this interrogatory. Responding Party also
13 objects to this interrogatory as it calls for the disclosure of information protected by the
14 deliberative process privilege.
15 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable.
16
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
18 As to each admission request served concurrently herewith to which YOU do not
19 provide an unqualified admission, separately set forth all facts upon which YOUR denial of
20 the admission request is based.
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
22 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
23 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to the
24 interrogatory as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.060(0,
25 which states "No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound,
26 conjunctive, or disjunctive question." Responding Party further objects this interrogatory
27 as it has already been posed as a form interrogatory by the Propounding Party. Continuous
28 discovery into the same matter constitutes oppression, and Responding Party objects on that
-14-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1 doc
 1 basis. (Professional Career Colleges v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 490, 493-
2 94.)
3 Subject to the foregoing, Responding Party responds by incorporating its Responses
4 to Propounding Party's Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.
5
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
7 As to each admission request served concurrently herewith to which YOU do not
8 provide an unqualified admission, identify in detail all WRITINGS which support YOUR
9 denial of the admission request.
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
11 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
WATSONIGER SH ON
ATTO RNEYSATLAW - APRO FE SS IONALCORPORATI ON

12 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to the
13 interrogatory as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.060(f),
14 which states "No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound,
15 conjunctive, or disjunctive question." Responding Party further objects this interrogatory
16 as it has already been posed as a form interrogatory by the Propounding Party. Continuous
17 discovery into the same matter constitutes oppression, and Responding Party objects on that
18 basis. (Professional Career Colleges v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 490, 493-
19 94.)
20 Subject to the foregoing, Responding Party responds by incorporating its Responses
21 to Propounding Party's Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.
22
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
24 Have YOU constructed or developed any wells, a purpose of which was to recapture
25 return flows from State Water Project water AVEK imports into the area of adjudication?
26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
27 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
28 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
-15-
Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234 \1646356v1.doc
 1 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
2 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
3 further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "constructed or developed", "to
4 recapture return flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague, ambiguous and
5 unintelligible as used in this interrogatory. Responding Party also objects to this
6 interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to
7 the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence.
8 Subject to the foregoing, no.
9
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
11 Set forth all facts supporting YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 23.
WATSONI GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFE SSIONALCORPORATION

12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

13 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
14 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
15 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
16 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.010(b).
17 Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "constructed or
18 developed", "to recapture return flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague,
19 ambiguous and unintelligible as incorporated in this interrogatory. Responding Party also
20 objects to this interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not
21 likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Responding Party also
22 objects to this interrogatory because it necessitates the preparation of a compilation,
23 abstract, audit or summary from documents in Responding Party's possession and such
24 preparation would be similarly burdensome and/or expensive to both the propounding and
25 responding parties. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.)
26 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable.
27
28
-16-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234\1646356v1 doc
 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
2 Describe in detail all WRITINGS which support your response to Special
3 Interrogatory No. 23.
4 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
5 Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and
6 General Objections as though expressly set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this
7 interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is
8 beyond the scope of discovery permitted by C.C.P. section 2030.010(b). Responding Party
9 further objects to this interrogatory because the terms "constructed or developed", "to
10 recapture return flows" and "imported" are not defined and are vague, ambiguous and
11 unintelligible as incorporated in this interrogatory. Responding Party also objects to this
ATTO RNEYSATLAW - APR OFESSI ONALCOR PORATI ON

12 interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to

13 the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Responding Party also objects to this
RIC HARD S I WATSON

14 interrogatory because it necessitates the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or

15 summary from documents in Responding Party's possession and such preparation would be
16 similarly burdensome and/or expensive to both the propounding and responding parties.
17 (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.)
Wale 18 Subject to the foregoing, not applicable.
rj
19
20 Dated: December 18, 2013 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
A Professional Corporation
21 JAMES L. MARK
STEVEN
22
23
By:
24 EN R. IRR
Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-
25 Complainant, and Cross-Defendant
CITY OF PALMDALE
26
27
28
-17-
Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories
P6399-1234 \1646356v1 doc
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Kelley Herrington, declare:
3 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South
4 Grand Avenue, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. On December 18, 2013, I served the
within documents:
5
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
6
by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from (213)
7 626-0078 to the person(s) and facsimile number(s) set forth below on this date
before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without error.
8 A copy of the transmission report(s), which was properly issued by the
transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made
9 pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties.
10 X by posting the document(s) listed above to the Santa Clara County Superior Court
ATTORN EYSAT LAW - APRO FESS IONAL CO RPO RATIO N

website in regard to the Antelope Valley Groundwater matter.

11
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre-
12 paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to an agent for delivery, or
deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or
13 package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or
provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
14
fEl by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the
15 address(es) set forth below.
16 El by causing personal delivery by First Legal Support Services, 1511 West Beverly
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026 of the document(s) listed above to the
17 person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
19
Executed on December 18, 2013.
20
21
22 Kelley Herring n

23

24

25
26

27

28

P6399-1234\1080982v1.doc