PCHB141004748

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

v. ) MEMORANDUM ON ITS MOTION TO ) COMPEL DEPOSITIONS AND FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON ) LIMITATION ON ENTRY ONTO LAND DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, and ) THE PORT OF SEATTLE, ) ) Respondents. ) ACC's response to the Port's motion to compel ACC to make its witnesses available for deposition and to agree to reasonable restrictions on a site visit is both typical of ACC's past approach and completely consistent with ACC's strategy of pushing out discovery as far as possible. In a Response which the Board's Prehearing Order limited to 7 pages, ACC spends fully pages misstating the Port's position, accusing the Port of bad faith, and incessantly complaining about the Port's failure to provide dates I for a site visit. Amidst all the vitriol and recrimination, ACC's Response fails to acknowledge the following salient facts that have a direct bearing on both the discovery dispute and the parties' ability to prepare for the hearing on the merits in March: _ACC incorrectlycomplainsthat thePorthas failedto offerdatesfora sitevisitnofewerthan 5 timesin its 9-page Response(1:21;2:27;2:20;4:5 and9:19). ThePortinitiallywaitedto providedatesin the vainhopethat ACCwould agreeto reasonablerestrictionson its sitevisit. However,in a lettersentandreceivedpriorto ACC'sresponse,the Portofferedtwo datesforsucha visit: January25 andJanuary28. Consistentwith its strategyof stiflingdiscovery, ACCpromptlyrejectedboth ofthosedatesin a lettersentonJanuary17. PORTOF SEATTLE'SREPLYONITSMOTIONTO FOSTERPEPPER __4SHEFELMANPLLC COMPEL DEPOSITIONS AND FOR LIMITATION ON 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 ENTRYONTOLAND- 1 206-447-4400 ORIGINAL AR 004748 • ACC has not produced a single document in this case;2 • Despite having failed to obtain any protective order or bring a motion to compel a…
V V