BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FILED
10-13-17
Application of California-American Water 04:59 PM
Company (U210W) for Approval of the Application 12-04-019
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and (Filed April 23, 2012)
Authorization to Recover All Present and Future
Costs in Rates.

CITY OF MARINA AND MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT

JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME

LAYNE P. LONG MARK FOGELMAN

CITY MANAGER RUTH STONER MUZZIN
CITY OF MARINA FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP
211 Hillcrest Avenue 350 Sansome Street, Suite 210
Marina, CA 93933 San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 831-884-1278 Telephone: (415) 834-3800
Email: llong@cityofmarina.org Facsimile: (415) 834-1044
Email: mfogelman@friedmanspring.com
SARA STECK MYERS Email: rmuzzin@friedmanspring.com
ATTORNEY AT LAW
122 - 28th Avenue Attorneys for:
San Francisco, CA 94121 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT
Telephone: 415-387-1904
Facsimile: 415-387-4708
Email: ssmyers@att.net

For: CITY OF MARINA

Dated: October 13, 2017

 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of California-American Water

Company (U210W) for Approval of the Application 12-04-019
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and (Filed April 23, 2012)
Authorization to Recover All Present and Future
Costs in Rates.

CITY OF MARINA AND MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT

JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME

Pursuant to Rule 11.1(e) of the Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure, the City

of Marina (Marina) and the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) respectfully submit this

Joint Response in opposition to the motion of California American Water Company (CalAm)

to shorten the time within which parties must respond to CalAms motion to strike testimony

served yesterday (October 12, 2017) at 4:11 p.m (Motion). This Joint Response in opposition

to the motion for an order shortening time does not respond to CalAms motion to strike

testimony. If required to do so, Marina and MCWD will file timely responses to that motion in

subsequent pleadings.

I.
CALAMS OCTOBER 12 PLEADING VIOLATES
COMMISSION RULES AND SHOULD BE REJECTED FOR FILING.

First, on procedural grounds alone, the Commission should reject CalAms pleading for

filing. Motions in formal proceedings, like A.12-04-019, are governed by the Commissions

Rules of Practice and Procedure. By Rule 11.1(a), a motion is specifically defined as a request

for the Commission or the Administrative Law Judge to take a specific action related to an open

proceeding before the Commission. (Emphasis added.)

1
 The pleading filed by CalAm in A.12-04-019 yesterday (October 12, 2017) violates this

rule by requesting multiple actions by the Commission: (1) to strike testimony and (2) to

shorten response time. 1 Under Rule 11.1(a), CalAm was required to file separate motions for

each such request. The Commission should accordingly reject CalAms pleading for filing in

its entirety.

II.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD PROMPTLY REJECT CALAMS REQUEST
TO SHORTEN RESPONSE TIME AND PERMIT THE PARTIES A FULL
AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE LENGTHY,
COMPLICATED, AND ILL-TIMED MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY.

As noted above, Marina and MCWD reserve the right to respond fully to CalAms

motion to strike testimony contained in its October 12 filing, including its 81-page Appendix. If

the pleading is not rejected outright for its failure to comply with Rule 11.1(a) above, Marina and

MCWD strongly oppose here CalAms request to shorten response time from the 15 days

allowed for a Motion response under the Commissions rules to 3 business days based on

CalAms requested response date of October 17, 2017, and CalAms delayed filing of its Motion

until nearly the close of business on Thursday, October 12, 2017. The practical effect of the

timing of CalAms filing and its request to shorten time for responses to its motion is to deprive

Marina and MCWD of any meaningful opportunity to respond to CalAms requests to strike

testimony.

CalAms request to shorten the time to respond to its motion to strike is clearly

unreasonable on its face, given the length and complexity of its requests to strike testimony, and

the need for parties to prepare for the upcoming hearings that start on October 25, 2017. CalAm

could have filed its motion to strike much earlier, after the submission of intervenor testimony on

September 29, 2017, to allow parties a full opportunity to respond to the motion. But CalAm
1
CalAm Motion, at p. 1.
2
waited until the close of business yesterday, one day before CalAms rebuttal testimony was due

to be served and less than two weeks before the commencement of the evidentiary hearing. The

grant of an order shortening time can only impede the parties fair opportunity to respond to

CalAms ill-conceived motion, while they must simultaneously prepare for the imminent

hearing.

CalAms timing of the filing of its voluminous motion to strike so close to the start of

hearings, along with its request to greatly truncate the time permitted to respond, are clearly

aimed at undermining the parties notice and opportunity to be heard on the motion to strike.

CalAm has also sought to impede the parties ability to prepare for the hearing. Such egregious

litigation strategies should not be supported by the Commission. The Commission, therefore,

should act promptly to deny CalAms request to shorten response time and instead allow the

affected parties the full time allowed by the Commissions rules to respond to CalAms extensive

specification of voluminous testimony it proposes to have stricken testimony that the parties

served in good faith and in full compliance with the applicable scoping ruling for the upcoming

hearings.

III.
REQUESTED RELIEF

For the reasons stated above, Marina and MCWD request that the Commission act

promptly to reject CalAms October 12 pleading in full for its failure to comply with

Commission rules. If that action is not taken or even if CalAm acts to correct that error, Marina

and MCWD request that CalAms request to shorten response time contained in its October 12

motion be denied with prejudice. Marina, MCWD, and the other parties to this proceeding must

be afforded the ordinary time allowed by Rule 11.1(e) to fully and appropriately respond to

CalAms requests to strike testimony contained in CalAms October 12 Motion.

3
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ SARA STECK MYERS
SARA STECK MYERS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
122 - 28th Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94121
Telephone: 415-387-1904
Facsimile: 415-387-4708
Email: ssmyers@att.net
LAYNE P. LONG
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF MARINA
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
Telephone: 831-884-1278
Email: llong@cityofmarina.org
For: CITY OF MARINA
Dated: October 13, 2017
/s/ MARK FOGELMAN
MARK FOGELMAN
RUTH STONER MUZZIN
FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP
350 Sansome Street, Suite 210
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 834-3800
Facsimile: (415) 834-1044
Email: mfogelman@friedmanspring.com
Email: rmuzzin@friedmanspring.com
Attorneys for:
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT