III. Suburban's Motion to Compel Answers to Data Requests
On June 28, 1999, Suburban filed a motion to compel that raises issues similar to those raised by Cal-Am's motion. Suburban's motion seeks to compel RK&M to answer 25 specific questions set forth in Appendix A to the May 3 Scoping Memo. In an effort to narrow disputes in this proceeding, these questions had asked all parties to provide specific facts (such as the date and location of any water quality violations or personal injuries), as well as comments on existing water quality regulation and its enforcement.
In its motion, Suburban contends that this proceeding was instituted in response to a number of lawsuits, including the Santamaria and Anderson lawsuits,7 which allege that the public utility defendants have provided contaminated water to the plaintiffs for many years.8 Suburban argues that RK&M's petition to intervene was granted based on the representation that this proceeding would affect the outcome of these lawsuits, that RK&M has actively participated in this proceeding on behalf of over 500 plaintiff clients and that, in view of this participation, it would be "preposterous" - as the May 3 Scoping Memo concluded - "for law-firm intervenors to proclaim that now requiring them to provide the factual bases [for] their allegations would impose an undue burden [on them] or other unfairness." (Suburban Motion, pp. 6-7, quoting May 3 Scoping Memo at p. 7.) Suburban notes that all parties, except the plaintiff intervenors, have responded to the Commission's inquiries, and that RK&M should also be compelled to do so.
A. RK&M Response
On July 8, 1999, RK&M filed a response to Suburban's motion. RK&M contends that the sole purpose of its involvement in this proceeding has been to address jurisdictional issues, and that its participation has been limited to those issues. Suggesting that it has made only a special appearance, RK&M argues that the Commission lacks personal jurisdiction to compel answers to the questions in the May 3 Scoping Memo.
B. Discussion
Although Suburban is seeking an order requiring answers to questions posed in a Commission scoping memo rather than the parties' data requests, its motion is otherwise quite similar to the motions to compel filed by CWA and Cal-Am, and similar reasoning applies.
Contrary to the suggestions in its July 8 response, RK&M - like the EL&L Group -- did not make a special appearance in this proceeding, but asked for and was granted intervention with the rights of a full-party. It has participated fully in this proceeding and has received the same data responses and factual information made available to all other parties. RK&M has not disputed this information, nor has it contested the conclusions drawn from the information by staff, the regulated utilities and DHS. Moreover, RK&M has offered no contrary information of its own. Based on this silence, we have no choice but to conclude that RK&M neither disputes this data nor the conclusions drawn from it by other parties.
Rather than prolong this proceeding by issuing a second ruling that directs RK&M to answer questions that it has previously been ordered to answer, we believe it would be a better use of the parties' and the Commission's resources to deny Suburban's motion, and resolve the issues in this proceeding based on the existing record.
7 Kristin Santamaria et al. v. Suburban Water Systems et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court No. KC025995, Complaint filed July 29, 1997; and, Anthony Anderson et al. v. Suburban Water Systems et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court No. KC028524, First Amended Complaint filed October 13, 1998. 8 In particular, the plaintiffs allege that Suburban knew or should have known that hazardous contaminants existed in its well water supply, that Suburban failed to used reasonable care to remediate the problem, and that this lack of care caused plaintiffs to be exposed to toxic chemicals including TCE, PCE, CTC and perchlorate.
