lausd motion to compel
Upload: citizens-campaign-to-fix-the-expo-rail-line-a-project-of-united-community-associations-inc
Post on 30-May-2018
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 LAUSD Motion to Compel
1/7
In the Matter of the Application of the Exposition
Metro Line Construction Authority for an order
authorizing the construction of a two-track at-grade
crossing for the Exposition Boulevard Corridor Light
Rail Transit Line across Jefferson Boulevard, Adams
Boulevard, and 23 Street, all three crossings locatedrd
along Flower Street in the City of Los Angeles,
County of Los Angeles, California.
And Consolidated Proceedings.
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application 06-12-005
(Filed December 6, 2006)
Application 06-12-020
(Filed December 19, 2006)
Application 07-01-004
(Filed January 2, 2007)
Application 07-01-017
(Filed January 8, 2007)
Application 07-01-044(Filed January 24, 2007)
Application 07-02-007
(Filed February 7, 2007)
Application 07-02-017
(Filed February 16, 2007)
Application 07-03-004
(Filed March 5, 2007)
Application 07-05-012
(Filed May 8, 2007)
Application 07-05-013(Filed May 8, 2007)
THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF STUDIES AND REPORTS
AND TO DETERMINE DRAFT TRAFFIC STUDY ADMISSIBLE
MICHAEL J.STRUMWASSER(SBN 58413)
FREDRIC D. WOOCHER(SBN 96689)
BEVERLY GROSSMAN PALMER(SBN234004)STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone: (310) 576-1233
Facsimile: (310) 319-0156
e-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for the
August 11, 2008 Los Angeles Unified School District
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/14/2019 LAUSD Motion to Compel
2/71
THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF STUDIES AND REPORTS
AND TO DETERMINE DRAFT TRAFFIC STUDY ADMISSIBLE
Throughout the weeks leading to this hearing, the Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD) and other parties have sought in discovery the production by the Exposition
Metro Line Construction Authority (Expo) all relevant studies prepared by Expo or by
contractors for Expo. Several such studies have been prepared but have been withheld from
production by Expo on the claim that the studies are covered by the deliberative process
privilege. This motion requests an order overruling this claim and compelling the Expo
Authority to produce immediately to the parties all such studies.
Expos position is, so far as LAUSD is aware, unprecedented in the proceedings of
this Commission and a brazen attempt to hide relevant information from the parties and from
the Commission. Modern practice in this tribunal and virtually uniformly in judicial and
administrative proceedings is for parties calling expert witnesses to be required to produce
all work-papers and studies that are or may be relevant to the witness testimony. (See
generally California Public Utilities Code Rules of Practice and Procedure rule (Rule) 10.1.
[adopting the same scope of discovery found in the trial courts (compare Code Civ. Proc.,
2017.010)].) Recognizing the technical nature of proceedings before the Commission, the
rules specially ensure parties access to models and data. (Rules 10.3, 10.4.) Yet Expo has
chosen to withhold such studies and reports documents that, it is now clear, directly
contradict and impeach the testimony of its witnesses.
The issue is nicely framed by one such study, a traffic study of the effects of closing
-
8/14/2019 LAUSD Motion to Compel
3/7
Everything said in this document about the draft study has been obtained from information*
made public by Expo. Last week, in connection with mediation, Expo made the draft study
available to any party willing to accept it under terms of the confidentiality agreement governing
mediation. LAUSD and Expo agreed that LAUSD would receive the draft report under those
terms, subject to the further agreement that it was without prejudice to parties rights to contend at
an evidentiary hearing that they or their representatives should be permitted to refer to the draft study
in testimony or cross examination or to introduce it into evidence in whole or in part or, to the
contrary, that such uses of the draft study should not be permitted. This motion is brought for that
purpose, to determine that LAUSD is entitled to use the draft report because the claim of privilege
is without merit. Until this motion is ruled upon, LAUSD will not rely on any information obtained
from its access to the draft report. However, Expo has publicly provided enough information to
enable LAUSD to describe it as it has here.
2
Farmdale Avenue to implement one of the alternative designs for the Farmdale crossing that
this Commission ordered the Expo Authority to analyze. Expo has marked this study,
prepared by one if its outside contractors, as a draft and withheld the study, asserting a
deliberative process privilege. Expo then commissioned another study, a study of the first
study, which, we now know, has reached the opposite conclusion from the draft study.*/
Last Friday night 63 hours before the evidentiary hearing began Expo produced this
final study and amended its testimony that had been based on the draft study. Yet
Expo still refuses to produce the antecedent document.
How important is the study? Sufficiently important that it has led Expos witnesses
to completely reverse their opinion on the traffic effects of closing Farmdale. For example,
the Prepared Testimony of Eric Olson served on June 9, had Expos Chief Project Engineer
testifying that closing Farmdale and diverting that traffic to other streets would cause
adverse traffic congestion and delays. (P. 19.) But last Friday night at 7:38 p.m., Expo
served new Prepared Testimony for three of its witnesses, including Mr. Olson, in which the
foregoing statement was replace by the opinion that closing Farmdale and diverting that
-
8/14/2019 LAUSD Motion to Compel
4/73
traffic to other streets would cause adverse traffic congestion and delays on adjacent streets.
(P. 19, strikeouts and underscoring provided by Expo). The Friday night filing elaborated
on this reversal of the most problematic issue with the following text, again showing
Exops strikeouts and underscoring:
As I mentioned, the most problematic issue with this option is the rerouting of
traffic due to the closure of Farmdale Avenue. Mr. Okazaki will speak to the
details of this in his testimony. In general, the preliminary traffic results have
indicated that the closure of Farmdale would increase traffic volumes on
adjacent streets, but create a significant adverse impact at a number of
intersections. Expo Authority is working to identify mitigations that can be
implemented to reduce these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant.
If this cannot be done, one option would be not to close off Farmdale to
vehicular traffic. (Pp. 25-26.)
We can reasonably infer from such changes in Expos Friday night revised testimony that the
draft traffic study found adverse impacts that would have to be mitigated, so Expo
commissioned another study to reach a conclusion more to its liking. It is understandable
that Expo does not want to produce the first study and have its witnesses impeached by it.
But it is inexcusable that Expo has attempted to cloak its manipulation of the evidence behind
a spurious claim of privilege.
Let us be clear: The deliberative process privilege does not apply to this
proceeding. The common-law deliberative process privilege has been abrogated by the
-
8/14/2019 LAUSD Motion to Compel
5/74
Evidence Code. ( Marylander v. Superior Court(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124-27
[common law deliberative process privilege not applicable to discovery request because not
enumerated in Evidence Code]; Cloud v. Superior Court(1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1558-
59 [federally-recognized privilege for self-critical analysis not recognized in California].)
While such claims may, under the proper circumstances, permit a document to be withheld
from the response to a request under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, 6250
et seq.; see Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court(1991), 53 Cal.3d 1325), it does not exist
under the Evidence Code and therefore may not be invoked to defeat discovery. (Gov. Code,
6260.) The privileges contained in the Evidence Code are exclusive, and courts cannot
create new ones. (See Evid. Code, 911; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court(1975)
15 Cal.3d 652, 656.) [E]videntiary privileges spring exclusively from our Evidence Code
and the courts are no longer free to modify existing privileges or to create new privileges.
(RLI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court(1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 415 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 438, quoting
Pitchess v. Superior Court(1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 540.) And even the common law
deliberative process privilege would apply only to direct judicial review of an
administrative decision. (51 Cal.App.4th at p. 438, citingIn re California Public Utilities
Comn (9th Cir. 1989) 892 F.2d 778, 781-782.)
The only ground recognized by the Evidence Code for withholding government
documents is the official information privilege of section 1040. (Shepherd v. Superior
Court(1976) 17 Cal.3d 107, 118, overruled on other grounds inPeople v. Holloway (2005)
13 Cal.4th 96, 131;Michael P. v. Superior Court(2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1042.) Expo
-
8/14/2019 LAUSD Motion to Compel
6/75
has not asserted this privilege and has, consequently, waived it. However, on the chance that
the Commission wishes to give Expo a reprieve from the waiver, we explain that the official
information privilege does not apply to these studies.
Evidence Code section 1040 recognizes two kinds of privilege, an absolute privilege
for information forbidden from disclosure by some other statute (Evid. Code, 1040,
subd. (b)(1)) which plainly does not apply here and a conditional privilege when
[d]isclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for
preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure
in the interest of justice (id. , subd. (b)(2)). Expo has not sought to conjure any explanation
how public disclosure of a technical study of the traffic effects would not be in the public
interest. To be sure, disclosure would be embarrassing to Expo and would make it more
difficult to defend its position here, but [i]n determining whether disclosure of the
information is against the public interest, the interest of the public entity as a party in the
outcome of the proceeding may not be considered. (Ibid.) No other public interest in non-
disclosure has even been suggested.
And the public interest in disclosure is obvious: These are technical studies by outside
contractors containing information not available elsewhere. To the extent they support
conclusions other than those drawn by Expo and its witnesses, disclosure may well be the
only way to obtain the evidence to test those conclusions, to provide the other parties a fair
opportunity to participate in the hearing, and to give the Commission any confidence in its
ultimate decision.
-
8/14/2019 LAUSD Motion to Compel
7/76
Even more fundamentally, these studies will provide a window into Expos apparent
manipulation of technical studies to serve its litigation interests in this case. To the extent
it shows that Expo has suppressed studies with conclusions not to its liking and has
commissioned other studies that alter the assumptions or methodologies to arrive at different
conclusions, that practice is highly relevant to the weight this Commission should give to
Expos witnesses testimony. To ignore such practices and to accept the project proponents
technical assertions at face value would make a mockery of this hearing.
Accordingly, LAUSD moves for an order compelling Expo to produce the draft
traffic study and all other undisclosed studies and work-papers forthwith, and that further
proceedings be managed in a way that permits the parties to make reasonable use of the
belatedly-produced documents.
Dated: August 11, 2008 Respectfully submitted,
By / s /
Michael J. Strumwasser
Michael J. Strumwasser
Fredric D. Woocher
Beverly Grossman Palmer
STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone: (310) 576-1233
Facsimile: (310) 319-0156
e-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for the
Los Angeles Unified School District