In an order filed May 15, 2026, in Central Valley Eden Environmental Defenders, LLC v. Sweetener Products, Inc., U.S. District Judge William Shubb granted in part and denied in part Sweetener Products’ motion to compel and Central Valley Eden’s motion for a protective order.
Central Valley Eden, a Northern California environmental group, sued Sweetener Products under the Clean Water Act, alleging the defendant’s facility discharged contaminated storm water into the Mokelumne River in violation of California’s Industrial General Permit.
Sweetener Products served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice identifying nine topics, including the basis for the plaintiff’s allegations, the impact on the river, and the organization’s mission and membership.
The court denied the motion to compel on Topics 2, 5, and 7, and denied Topic 4 without prejudice. The court granted the protective order on these topics.
Topic 2, which sought testimony on sampling and monitoring activities, was barred as premature expert testimony. Topic 5, regarding the basis for allegations that Sweetener discharged contaminated storm water, was similarly barred. Topic 7, which asked about the basis for the allegation that discharges reach a “Water of the United States,” was denied because it sought a legal conclusion and expert testimony on stormwater discharges.
Topic 4, concerning the basis of the claim that members were injured, was denied without prejudice. The court noted the issue could be addressed in depositions of specific standing witnesses, though it left open the possibility for Sweetener to renew the request if standing is not adequately addressed through individual member depositions.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motions on Topics 1 and 8.
Topic 1, seeking documentation and photographic evidence, was limited to photographs referenced in the complaint. The court ruled the topic overbroad and premature because it could encompass expert discovery before expert disclosures had been exchanged.
Topic 8, which asked about the organization’s business purpose, mission, and structure, was split. The court allowed questioning on the organization’s purpose and mission but barred inquiries into its organizational structure and membership.
The court rejected Central Valley Eden’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College barred discovery into organizational standing. The court clarified that Harvard did not reject the Hunt test for organizational standing but rather affirmed that organizations with identified members could rely on the doctrine. However, the court accepted Sweetener’s concession that an organization that has identified its members in good faith may avoid further scrutiny of its operations.
The court declined to award attorney’s fees to either side, noting that both motions were granted and denied in part.
Adam Brumm appeared as counsel for Plaintiff; Jennifer Novak appeared as counsel for Defendant.