Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Reichardt Duck Farm, Inc

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVES Case No. 22-cv-09065-AGT TO TOXICS,

Plaintiff, DISCOVERY ORDER v. Re: Dkt. No. 46

REICHARDT DUCK FARM, INC, et al., Defendants.

Defendant John Reichardt must produce the financial documents plaintiff has requested, see RFP Nos. 29–33, unless the documents don’t exist or are not in Reichardt’s possession, custody, or control. Reichardt’s finances are relevant to the amount (if any) of civil penalties to be imposed under the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d). Reichardt may qualify as a “responsible corporate officer,” who would be liable under the Clean Water Act if Reichardt Duck Farm, Inc., discharged polluted stormwater into waters of the United States. See United States v. Iverson, 162 F.3d 1015, 1022–25 (9th Cir. 1998). The governing protective order will prevent plaintiff from publicly disclosing Reichardt’s confidential financial information, in- cluding his tax returns. See Order, Dkt. 38 at 2 (explaining that the protective order will ensure that “the public policy against unnecessary public disclosure of tax returns” isn’t contravened) (simplified). Defendants must also produce all documents in their possession, custody, or control that describe any “medicines, pharmaceuticals, hormones, supplements, nutrients, or probiotics given or applied to ducks” at their facility. RFP No. 55, Dkt. 46 at 38. As plaintiff notes, such compounds would plausibly be excreted, in part, by ducks at defendants’ facility and may be present in stormwater discharges. See id. at 3. Even if these compounds are not regulated pol- lutants, as defendants suggest, the compounds may, when identified, be relevant to the water sampling parameters. See id. Unless leave is obtained, defendants must comply with this order by July 12, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 22, 2023 | ) Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge