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

Plaintiffs Ecological Rights Foundation and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper sued SCE under the Clean Water Act and RCRA, alleging pollutant discharges from six SCE facilities without permits and seeking discovery including stormwater/sediment sampling and visual observations.
Plaintiffs sought three site inspections at each of six named SCE facilities during the rainy season to collect samples and make observations.
SCE responded with conditional offers: allow inspections at three uninspected sites or accept a stipulation about discharges, and requested COVID-related measures (48-hour notice, visitor screening), limits on attendees, no audio/video, and time limits.
Plaintiffs moved to compel after meet-and-confer communications; the Court found the requested inspections highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and appropriate during the rainy season.
The Court granted the motion in part, imposing limits: 48 hours advance notice, three inspections per facility, video allowed but audio prohibited, up to four hours per inspection, and compliance with SCE’s COVID-19 restrictions (screening, PPE, etc.).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Relevance of site inspections	Inspections and sampling are highly relevant to show pollutant levels and site conditions supporting CWA/RCRA claims	Inspections premature / potentially bifurcating discovery; written discovery could suffice	Inspections are highly relevant; allowed now (rainy season) despite pending bifurcation motion
Advance notice period	Request allowed 24 hours notice per prior agreement	COVID-19 and operational constraints require at least 48 hours to screen visitors and arrange escorts	48 hours advance notice required
Number of inspection rounds	Need three rounds per site to detect changes over time and obtain probative evidence	Three rounds are burdensome, unprecedented; written discovery could characterize changes	Three rounds per facility allowed; SCE failed to show undue burden
Recording (video/audio)	Video and photos necessary to document dynamic conditions (e.g., drips, sheens)	Photographs suffice; video risks disruption and safety concerns; object to recordings	Video permitted; audio recordings prohibited
Duration of each inspection	Plaintiffs sought 9–5 window to ensure ability to visit while raining (but not necessarily 8 hours on-site)	Eight-hour access is disproportionate and unduly burdensome; inspections should be ~1–4 hours	Each inspection limited to up to four hours

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp, 519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975) (party resisting discovery bears heavy burden to clarify and support objections)