Jarose v. County of Humboldt

Background

Pamela Jarose, the executor of John Braun’s estate, and Humboldt County disputed responsibility for cleaning up hazardous waste at a property previously owned by Braun in Eureka, California. Each side claimed that the other violated the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, California’s Hazardous Substances Account Act, and other state-law provisions.

Fact discovery closed on January 17, 2020, and expert discovery closed on March 20, 2020. Jarose filed a summary-judgment motion asserting, among other things, that Braun was not responsible under the federal environmental statute because he did not own the property when the hazardous substance was discharged. On May 26, 2020, after discovery had closed, the County disclosed additional information. Jarose moved to strike those disclosures.

The disputed disclosures

The County disclosed four categories of information:

Court’s analysis

The court explained that discovery generally must be completed by the cutoff date, but a court may allow later discovery for good cause. It also explained that parties must timely supplement disclosures when they learn that earlier information was materially incomplete or incorrect.

For the historical records and amended interrogatory responses, the court found good cause because Jarose had raised new facts about Braun’s ownership and the drycleaner’s operating dates after discovery closed. The court also considered the County’s efforts to respond to the summary-judgment motion, the parties’ mediation schedule, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lack of demonstrated prejudice. It denied the motion to strike this information.

For the additional costs, the court generally denied the motion to strike because the County had a duty to supplement its disclosures with expenses incurred after its November 2019 disclosures. But the County agreed that it would not use new cost information from before those November 2019 disclosures if that information had not been disclosed at that time. The court therefore granted the motion to strike supplemental disclosures attributable to costs incurred before the November 2019 disclosures.

For the environmental data and report, the court denied the motion to strike. It found that the County appropriately supplemented its disclosures with information generated during its ongoing investigation and remediation. The court said disputes about the proper scope of expert evidence could be raised in a later motion about what evidence should be admitted at trial.

For the witnesses, the County limited its disclosure to three custodial witnesses who would authenticate documents. Jarose withdrew her objection to one of those witnesses at the hearing, so the court did not strike the witness disclosures.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to strike except that it granted the motion to strike new material about costs incurred before the County’s November 2019 disclosures. The order disposed of ECF No. 64. The court also directed the parties to submit a revised proposed schedule to the trial judge and to discuss whether limited additional discovery about the historical ownership records was needed.