SAN DIEGO – An appellate court has ruled that companies that allegedly violated the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act must provide financial records to the State Water Resources Control Board.
Justice Patricia Guerrero authored tthe opinion entered in January. Justices Judith McConnell and Patricia D. Benke concurred.
"We conclude the trial court properly balanced the competing interests here," Guerrero wrote. "Although appellants assert the trial court did not adequately explain the basis for its ruling, it is clear from the record that the trial court considered the scope of the subpoena requests and appellants' relevancy and privacy concerns, balanced the competing interests, and carefully exercised its discretion in compelling production of responsive documents subject to a protective order."
Guerrero noted in the opinion that the trial court did not err when it granted the State Water Resources Control Board's petition compelling compliance with the subpoenas.
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region issued notices of violation to Sunranch Capital Partners, USA Portola Properties and Baldwin & Sons in 2016, finding that the companies made construction general permit violations, which also constituted as federal and state water quality law violations, according to the opinion.
During an investigation, the State Water Resources Control Board served subpoenas, which were seeking financial documents related to corporate management and to the project where the violations occurred. The appellants then refused to comply with the subpoenas and the State Water Resources Control Board filed a petition with the trial court seeking to compel the appellants to comply with the subpoenas.
The trial court then granted the State Water Resources Control Board's request to compel in all instances but one and issued a protective order in which the State Water Resources Control Board agreed not to include any of the protected material in an administrative record or public record. Baldwin & Sons then appealed.
"In sum, we conclude that the challenged subpoenas were sufficiently definite, and the information sought was reasonably relevant to the State Board's authorized investigation," Guerrero wrote. "The trial court properly enforced the subpoenas pursuant to the State Board's petition."
The court also reversed a conditional sealing order and denied a request by the appellants to file a certificate under seal.
California Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division One case number D075617