SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Similar documents
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORIGINAL FILED. los ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT MAR 1G 2010 ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

EXHIBIT C DECLARATION OF LUCAS I. QUASS 20

1 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES ERIC L. GARNER, Bar No

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ANTELOPE VALLEY GROLINDWATER CASES ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT. Santa Clara Case No CV INCLUDED ACTIONS:

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2017. Exhibit D

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Appendix A. Notices and Notification List. Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 2015 Urban Water Management Plan

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, United Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "United" or

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. Chapter 11

Plaintiff, Defendant. GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 1. The following responses are without in any way waiving or intending to waive:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ONE

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D.

ANTELOPE VALLEY WATERMASTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/23/ :51 AM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2015 EXHIBIT B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: Civ-Martinez

SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY

DEFENDANT S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF S FIRST AND CONTINUING INTERROGATORIES

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :30 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2017

Case3:13-cv SI Document11 Filed03/26/13 Page1 of 17

PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF DEL NORTE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.

COUNTY-CITY SPECIAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT ( Agreement ), dated for reference purposes on the

Responses of the Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc. to Defendants First Set of Interrogatories

California Enterprise Development Authority

11/16/2017 1:46 PM 17CV10996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. * Case No. 17-cv-2006-EH * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ecclesiastical Court of the Missionary Diocese of CANA East Rules of Procedure

LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION LAWYER DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM RULES (Prev. Rev. 10/06/00) Effective May 1, Preamble

R. BRIAN DIXON, Bar No LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Wills and Trusts Arbitration RULES

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Investigations and Enforcement

Consolidated Arbitration Rules

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. Plaintiff, j Judge: Hon. Joan M. Lewis ) ) )

RULE 19 APPEALS TO THE CAREER SERVICE HEARING OFFICE (Effective January 10, 2018; Rule Revision Memo 33D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Case 2:09-cv VBF-FFM Document 24 Filed 09/30/2009 Page 1 of 13

INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

Wills and Trusts Arbitration RULES

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 H 1 HOUSE BILL 380. Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

THE PHI KAPPA TAU FRATERNITY CLAIM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLAN AND RULES

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

~/

ARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties

Please reply to: Joyia Z. Greenfield Zachariah R. Tomlin May 6, 2016

SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY

RESOLUTION: OF THE ANTELOPE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. REGARDING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR COVENANT AND RULE ENFORCEMENT

Case 5:07-cv VAP-JCR Document 11 Filed 06/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION

National Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS

BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 19 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Minnesota No-Fault, Comprehensive or Collisions Damage Automobile Insurance Arbitration RULES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL DIVISION. Special Title (Rule 1550(b)) PROCEEDING NO.

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TEXAS DISCOVERY. Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY

Discovery Requests in Trademark Cases Under U.S. Law

1. Intent. 2. Definitions. OCERS Board Policy Administrative Hearing Procedures

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/18/ :11 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/18/2017

Case 1:13-cv JKB Document Filed 05/31/17 Page 1 of 13 EXHIBIT E

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI DELTA DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:11-CV-7-NBB-SAA

Case 2:06-cv RSM Document 30 Filed 05/04/2006 Page 1 of 6

Case 3:16-cv SI Document 39 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 5

SEXUAL ASSAULT, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CONTINGENCY ATTORNEY-CLIENT RETAINER AGREEMENT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE. into by and between Sandra G. Myrick ("Myrick") and the North Carolina Administrative Office

International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ISDA RESOLUTION STAY JURISDICTIONAL MODULAR PROTOCOL

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER

RESOLUTION: OF THE SADDLE RIDGE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. REGARDING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR COVENANT AND RULE ENFORCEMENT

Legal 145b FINAL EXAMINATION. Prepare a Motion to Quash Subpoena.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NC General Statutes - Chapter 1A Article 5 1

IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

Case 5:05-cv RMW Document 97 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946

.A.A AVSWCA. S Antelope Valley state Water Contradon Assotiillion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:18-cv R-AGR Document 7 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:26

Transcription:

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 WAYNE K. LEMIEUX (SBN 01 W. KEITH LEMIEUX (SBN 0 CHRISTINE CARSON (SBN. LEMIEUX & O'NEILL 1 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 0 Westlake Village, CA 1 Telephone: (0-0 Facsimile: (0 - Attorneys for Cross-complainants LITTLEROCK CREEK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, PALM RANCH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Defendants NORTH EDWARDS WATER DISTRICT, DESERT LAKE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, LLANO DEL RIO WATER CO., LLANO MUTUAL WATER CO., BIG ROCK MUTUAL WATER CO. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT Coordinated Proceeding Special Title (Rule (b ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES Included Actions: Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 0 v. Diamond Farming Co. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 01; Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 0 v. Diamond Farming Co., Kern County Superior Court, Case No. S-0-CV-; Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. v. City of Lancaster Diamond Farming Co. v. City of Lancaster v. Palmdale Water District, Riverside County Superior Court, Consolidated Actions, Case Nos. RIC 0, RIC, RIC AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS Judicial Council Coordination No. 0 Santa Clara Case No. 1-0-CV-00 Assigned to the Honorable Jack Komar Dept. 1 LITTLEROCK CREEK IRRIGATION DISTRICT S RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE Rsp.RFA1.LCID.Docx - 1 RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET 1

PROPOUNDING PARTY: GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S RESPONDING PARTY: LITTLEROCK CREEK IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 SET NO.: ONE (Nos. 1-1 Littlerock Creek Irrigation District ( Responding Party hereby responds to Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. s ( Propounding Party First Set of Requests For Admissions, as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS Each of the following responses and/or objections is based on information presently known by or reasonably available to the Responding Party at the time of preparation of these responses and/or objections. The Responding Party has not yet completed its discovery or investigation or the preparation of this case for trial. Accordingly, the responses set forth herein are provided without prejudice to the Responding Party s rights to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts or interpretations thereof, and/or to add or to modify or otherwise change or amend the responses herein. The Responding Party assumes no obligation to voluntarily supplement or amend this response to reflect such facts, testimony or other evidence. The information hereinafter set forth is true and correct to the best of the Responding Party s knowledge at this particular time, but is subject to correction for inadvertent errors or omissions, if any errors or omissions shall be found to exist. The Responding Party objects to each and every request for admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Each request for admission shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included.... The Responding Party objects to each and every request for admission insofar as it seeks admission of a legal matter, without reference to any fact, which is beyond the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.0. The Responding Party objects to each and every request for admission insofar as it calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work production doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, the official information privilege, and the right of privacy or any other applicable privilege. The Responding Party objects to each and every request for admission insofar as it Rsp.RFA1.LCID.Docx - RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 seeks privileged information protected from disclosure by the privacy interests of the individuals involved, as well as by applicable evidentiary rules. The Responding Party does not intend to waive such privileges, and responses to these request for admissions are not intended and should not be construed as a waiver. Each of the foregoing general objections and qualifications are incorporated in full in each of the responses set forth below, as if fully set forth therein, and each of the responses below are provided subject to, and without waiving, the general objections and qualifications asserted herein. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: included.... Responding Party also objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks admission of a legal matter, without reference to any fact, which is beyond the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party also objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks admission of a legal matter, without reference to any fact, which is beyond the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party objects to this request as the term acquired is undefined and is vague and ambiguous as used in this request. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. : Rsp.RFA1.LCID.Docx - RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET 1

1 1 1 1 1 admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: included.... Responding Party also objects to this request as the phrase real property owned by propounding party is vague and ambiguous as incorporated in this request. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. : admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party objects to this request as the phrases acquired and real property owned by propounding party are undefined and are vague and ambiguous as used in this 1 request. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil 1 1 0 Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. : admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Rsp.RFA1.LCID.Docx - RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. : admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party objects to this request as the phrases actual notice, pumping water and under a claim of right are undefined and are vague and ambiguous as used in this request. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it calls for speculation. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. : admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible Rsp.RFA1.LCID.Docx - RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET 1

1 1 evidence. Responding Party objects to this request as the phrases actual notice, pumping water and notorious manner are undefined and are vague and ambiguous as used in this request. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it calls for speculation. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. : Objections as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to this request for admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Each request for admission shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included.... Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks admission of a legal matter, without reference to any fact, which is beyond the scope of discovery 1 permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party also objects to this 1 1 1 1 1 0 interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request as the phrases actual notice, pumping water and exclusive manner are undefined and are vague and ambiguous as used in this request. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it calls for speculation. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. : admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Rsp.RFA1.LCID.Docx - RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request as the phrases actual notice, pumping water and continuous manner are undefined and are vague and ambiguous as used in this request. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it calls for speculation. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. : admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request as the phrases actual notice, pumping water and hostile and adverse manner are undefined and are vague and ambiguous as used in this request. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it calls for speculation. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. Rsp.RFA1.LCID.Docx - RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. : admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: included.... Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request as the phrase pumped groundwater west of the Bedrock Ridge is vague and ambiguous as used in this request. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. : admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: included.... Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request as the terms wells and down-gradient are undefined and are vague and ambiguous as used in this request. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Rsp.RFA1.LCID.Docx - RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party objects to this request as the phrase impact, groundwater levels and any well are undefined and are vague and ambiguous as used in this request. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party objects to this request as the terms interfered, exercise, and groundwater rights are undefined and are vague and ambiguous as used in this request. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Objections as though expressly set forth herein. The Responding Party objects to this request for admission as it does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.00(d, which provides: Each request for admission shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included.... Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks admission of a legal matter, Rsp.RFA1.LCID.Docx - RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET 1

without reference to any fact, which is beyond the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 0.0. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it is irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request as the terms wells, interfered, and operation are undefined and are vague and ambiguous as used in this request. This request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 0.0, 0.0 and 0.0 and attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 01.00 and 01.00. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 DATED: January, 01 LEMIEUX & O'NEILL /s/ Christine Carson By W. KEITH LEMIEUX CHRISTINE CARSON Attorneys for Cross-Complainant LITTLEROCK CREEK IRRIGATION DISTRICT Rsp.RFA1.LCID.Docx - RESPONSE TO GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET 1