Plaintiff, North Coast Railroad Authority, has not completed his investigation of the in this case and has yet to complete discovery in this matter. Plaintiff therefore expressly reserves its right to amend or supplement these responses at any time pursuant to any information that is discovered or recovered after the date of these responses without assuming any duty to do so unless required to do so by the Code of Civil Procedure or order of the court. General objection to Definition Number H, encroachments.” The reference to “the “22 encroachments” in a demurrer response prepared under time pressure on or about November 3, 2016 was not for any purpose other than to call to the court’s attention that there were a number of encroachments which could not possibly be characterized as highway crossings by any reasonable argument and not for the purpose of entering into a binding pleading that there are only 22 encroachments not in public places. The methodology of counting is not recalled, it being apparent that a longitudinal fiber optic line was encountered at seventeen specific points and longitudinal crossings at seven additional points. However, at this time the Responding Party cannot recall the additional five encroachments by location or by characterization and the reference to 22 may have been a miscount made under time pressure to respond to a demurrer filing at the stage of the case. The seventeen points of fiber optic cable detections are identified in the response to Special Interrogatory 8 below. The operative pleading, the First Amended Complaint, offers notice as to the nature of the complaint SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Do YOU contend that PBTC maintains the Encroachments without YOUR permission or consent? RESPONSE: Yes SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 2 is anything other than an unqualified do YOU contend that PBTC’s maintenance of “No,” each Encroachment represents an individual act of trespass? RESPONSE: YES. Each unlicensed encroachment is a wrongful
Plaintiff, North Coast Railroad Authority, has not completed his investigation of the in this case and has yet to complete discovery in this matter. Plaintiff therefore expressly reserves its right to amend or supplement these responses at any time pursuant to any information that is discovered or recovered after the date of these responses without assuming any duty to do so unless required to do so by the Code of Civil Procedure or order of the court. General objection to Definition Number H, “the encroachments.” The reference to “22 encroachments” in a demurrer response prepared under time pressure on or about November 3, 2016 was not for any purpose other than to call to the court’s attention that there were a number of encroachments which could not possibly be characterized as highway crossings by any reasonable argument and not for the purpose of entering into a binding pleading that there are only 22 encroachments not in public places. The methodology of counting is not recalled, it being apparent that a longitudinal fiber optic line was encountered at seventeen specific points and longitudinal crossings at seven additional points. However, at this time the Responding Party cannot recall the additional five encroachments by location or by characterization and the reference to 22 may have been a miscount made under time pressure to respond to a demurrer filing at the stage of the case. The seventeen points of fiber optic cable detections are identified in the response to Special Interrogatory 8 below. The operative pleading, the First Amended Complaint, offers notice as to the nature of the complaint SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Do YOU contend that PBTC maintains the Encroachments without YOUR permission or consent? RESPONSE: Yes SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 2 is anything other than an unqualified “No,” do YOU contend that PBTC’s maintenance of each Encroachment represents an individual act of trespass? RESPONSE: YES. Each unlicensed encroachment is a wrongful
2016_05_09_Draft_Resp_to_Spec_ROGS_Set_One.docx