San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale

Background

San Francisco Baykeeper sued the Cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View under the Clean Water Act. Trial was scheduled to begin on June 10, 2025. The parties disputed the scope of trial, the period covered by the case, whether discovery should be reopened, and whether the Cities should receive a protective order barring updated information.

Scope of Trial

The court explained the effect of its earlier partial summary-judgment order. The court had found that Baykeeper had standing to assert its Clean Water Act claims except claims based on violations in Guadalupe Slough. In a footnote, the court also determined that Baykeeper had not shown standing for claims based on violations in the Sunnyvale East Channel. The court had found that the South San Francisco Bay, Guadalupe Slough, Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, and Sunnyvale East Channel were “Waters of the United States” covered by the Clean Water Act.

The court had also found that the Cities violated Receiving Water Limitation B.2, a permit provision governing stormwater discharges, on January 17, February 4, and February 13, 2019. The order specified that Sunnyvale violated that provision at the CC-1 outfall for Calabazas Creek and at the SC-9 outfall for Stevens Creek on each of those dates. Mountain View violated it at the SC-4 and SC-7 outfalls for Stevens Creek on each of those dates.

Because these issues were decided on summary judgment, the court ruled that they were established for trial and were outside the trial’s scope unless the court later granted reconsideration and vacated the summary-judgment findings. The issues remaining for trial were whether the Cities violated Discharge Prohibition A.1; whether they violated Limitation B.2 apart from the violations already found; affirmative defenses other than standing; and remedy-related issues, including penalty factors and requirements for injunctive relief.

The court also ruled that the parties could introduce evidence of the Cities’ relevant conduct up to the present. The case originally involved a 2015 stormwater permit, but a new permit took effect on July 1, 2022. The court found that the relevant provisions were identical in both permits and that the complaints’ requests for injunctive relief fairly encompassed post-2022 conduct. The court also stated that current conduct was relevant to whether injunctive relief would provide effective relief.

Motion to Reopen Discovery

Baykeeper sought to reopen discovery for two limited purposes: adding the Cities’ annual water-quality reports and updated geographic and pipe-system data to the record, and allowing the parties’ experts to submit supplemental reports based on that information.

Applying the factors used for reopening discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the court found that the balance favored reopening. The court relied on the more than four months remaining before trial, the limited nature of the requested discovery, the lack of significant prejudice to the Cities, delays that occurred after discovery closed, the issuance of the 2022 permit, and the likelihood that the discovery would produce relevant evidence. The court acknowledged that Baykeeper could have sought reopening earlier but gave that factor less weight because the proposed discovery was manageable and the Cities would not be significantly prejudiced.

The court GRANTED the motion to reopen discovery for the limited purposes identified above. The court also SUSTAINED the Cities’ objection to Baykeeper’s reply evidence and did not consider that evidence in this order.

Motion for Protective Order and Conclusion

The Cities sought a protective order for essentially the same reasons they opposed reopening discovery. Their requested relief would have prevented Baykeeper from updating the record with more recent documents. Because the court granted the motion to reopen discovery, it DENIED the Cities’ motion for a protective order.

Judge Edward J. Davila stated that the remaining trial issues were those identified in the order. The court converted the hearing on the two motions into a status conference and continued it to 10:00 a.m. on February 13, 2025. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status report by February 7, 2025, addressing proposed deadlines for reopened discovery, their availability for an earlier trial date if the court’s schedule allowed, and other trial-preparation issues.