Ecological Rights Foundation v. Hot Line Construction, Inc., 5:20-cv-01108

Plaintiffs (Ecological Rights Foundation and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper) allege SCE facilities discharge pollutants in violation of the CWA and RCRA and seek storm water and sediment sampling at SCE sites.
Plaintiffs previously executed a confidentiality agreement with SCE and, before filing suit, conducted inspections and sampling at three SCE facilities in March 2020; a fourth was not inspected due to lack of rain.
Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on September 9, 2020, identifying 27 SCE facilities and seeking discovery focused initially on up to six facilities.
Plaintiffs served a Request for Entry Upon Designated Property (Rule 34) for six facilities on October 10, 2020—before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference—after meet-and-confer efforts failed to secure SCE’s consent for early inspections.
The Court found the requested inspections relevant but premature under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d); it deemed the Rule 34 request served as of the parties’ November 17, 2020 Rule 26(f) conference and denied the motion to compel without prejudice.
Because of seasonal timing concerns (rainy season), the Court ordered SCE to serve its response to Plaintiffs’ Request within seven days of the Order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Plaintiffs obtain court-ordered site inspections before the Rule 26(f) conference?	Early inspections are necessary and time-sensitive (rainy season); inspections are highly relevant to CWA/RCRA claims.	Premature under Rule 26(d); Plaintiffs lacked court permission or stipulation to serve discovery early.	Denied without prejudice; request deemed served at the Rule 26(f) conference (Nov 17, 2020).
Are the requested inspections relevant to the claims?	Sampling and visual observations could show pollutant discharges supporting claims.	Did not dispute relevance; focused on timing and procedure instead.	Court found inspections clearly relevant under Rule 26(b)(1).
Should the Court accommodate expedited discovery given seasonal constraints?	Urgent need to inspect during rainy season justifies expedited handling.	Proposed alternatives: schedule Rule 26(f), provide disclosures and responses on a timeline instead of immediate inspections.	Court ordered SCE to respond to the Rule 34 Request within seven days despite denying the motion to compel.

Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (noting Rule 26(d) generally bars formal discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference).