state of new mexico county of san juan...

STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF SAN JUAN ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. STATE ENGINEER, D-1116-CV-75-184 Plaintiff, Honorable James J. Wechler v. San Juan River Adjudication THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Claims of Navajo Nation Defendants. Case No. AB-07-01

AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Richard T. C. Tully, Esq., hereby certifies the original of this Certificate of Service

was filed with the above-styled Court on July 2, 2012 and copies of this Certificate of

Service and Defendants B Square Ranch, LLC et al.’s Motion to Compel Discovery

were served on the Court’s electronic service list by e-mail to

[email protected] and to [email protected] on June 29, 2012 at

approximately 5:30 p.m., MDT. The original of this Amended Certificate of Service and

the original of Defendants B Square Ranch, LLC et al.’s Amended Motion to Compel

Discovery were served on the Court’s electronic service list by e-mail to

[email protected] and to [email protected] on July 3, 2012 at

approximately 2:15 p.m., MDT.

TULLY LAW FIRM, P. A. __/s/_________________________ Richard T. C. Tully, Esq. P. O. Box 268 Farmington, NM 87499-0268 (505) 327-3388 E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF SAN JUAN ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel., D-1116-CV-75-184 STATE ENGINEER, HON. JAMES J. WECHSLER Presiding Judge Plaintiffs,

v. SAN JUAN RIVER ADJUCICATION THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Cause No. AB-07-1 Claims of the Navajo Nation Defendants,

DEFENDANTS B SQUARE RANCH, LLC ET AL.’s AMENDED MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS/RESONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Due to inadvertence, error and oversight, Defendants B Square Ranch, LLC et

al. failed to file an originally signed Motion to Compel Discovery with the Court Clerk,

but did however serve their original Certificate of Service and their original Motion to

Compel Discovery on the Court’s electronic list by e-mail to

[email protected] on June 29, 2012 at approximately 5:30 p.m., MDT.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: Defendants B Square Ranch, LLC et al. move to compel Settling Parties to answer/respond to the interrogatories these Defendants propounded to the Settling Parties NAME OF PARTY: Defendants B Square Ranch, LLC et al. NUMBER OF PAGES: 45 DATE OF FILING: June 29, 2012 by electronic service and July 3, 2012 with Court Clerk


Pursuant to Rule 1-037(A) NMRA 2012, Defendants B Square Ranch, LLC et al.

move for an order compelling the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the

State of New Mexico (“Settling Parties”) to answer/respond to these Defendants’ First

Set of Joint Interrogatories served upon the Settling Parties on June 1, 2012. As

grounds for this Motion, Plaintiffs state:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Pursuant to the scheduling order entered by the Court in the above-styled

action, counsel for certain Non-Settling Parties met in Albuquerque, New Mexico on

April 16, 2012 to discuss and coordinate discovery requests to the Settling Parties.

2. At this conference and in subsequent conversations, counsel for the Non-

Settling Parties divided up and assigned responsibilities for the issues for which

discovery would be requested from the Settling Parties in the above-styled action, and

the discovery requests to be propounded to the Settling Parties would be “joint”

requests.

3. On June 1, 2012, counsel for Defendants B Square Ranch et al. served their

First Set of Joint Interrogatories on Settling Parties. A copy of this First Set of Joint

Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

4. Settling Party State of New Mexico ex rel. State Engineer served its

Objections to the First Set of Joint Interrogatories on June 15, 2012 and Settling Parties

Navajo Nation and United States of America separately served their Objections to the

First Set of Joint Interrogatories on June 15, 2012. Copies of these Objections are

attached hereto as Exhibits “B” and “C”, respectively.

5. In its Objections, the State of New Mexico stated these Defendants’

Interrogatories were overly broad; not limited in scope; sought irrelevant information not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; speculative;

called for a legal conclusion; requested the Settling Parties to conduct analyses; provide

information protected under the attorney-client privilege or as confidential work product;

that discovery is not completed; the Court has not issued a decision on whether there

will be an evidentiary hearing in this matter; and names of trial witnesses, if any, would

be provided in accordance with a scheduling order.

6. In its Objections, the Navajo Nation and the United States of America stated

these Defendants’ Interrogatories contained Introductions that were characterizations of

law and/or fact that were either inaccurate or incomplete, or both; Defendants’

Introductions in the Interrogatories were vague, ambiguous, impossible to respond to,

and/or sought information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to

discovery of admissible information; the Interrogatories requested information that was

protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product privilege; the

Interrogatories sought information based on unknown and unspecified circumstances

and principles of law or based on a hypothetical set of possibilities unrelated to the

Settlement Motion; the Interrogatories were unreasonable, unduly burdensome, overly

broad, oppressive and sought information that is neither relevant nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; to the extent these Settling

Parties must perform an unnecessary complex legal analysis incorporating

considerations of statute, case law and a hypothetical set of broadly undefined

circumstances, the Interrogatories are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, unduly

burdensome, and are obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less

burdensome, and less expensive.

7. The Navajo Nation and the United States of America filed an Errata Notice-

Concerning Objections of the Navajo Nation and the United States to Discovery

Requests on June 26, 2012. This Errata Notice clarified the name of a Settling Party

who was responding to these Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 11, but such Errata Notice

did not otherwise change, delete nor add to these Settling Parties’ Objections stated in

#6 above.

8. The Settling Parties have not answered or responded to a single

Interrogatory propounded to them other than to state numerous objections.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Rule 1-071.2 NMRA 2012 provides that B Square Ranch, LLC et al. have been

indentified as water claimants and they have been served and joined as Defendants in

the above-styled action. Rule 1-037(A)(2) NMRA 2012 provides that when a party fails

to answer an interrogatory, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an

answer from such party. Further, Rule 1-037 (A)(3) NMRA 2012 provides that an

evasive or incomplete answer is treated as a failure to answer.

The Instructions to the Interrogatories of Defendants B Square Ranch et al.

propounded to the Settling Parties stated as follows:

“INSTRUCTIONS

1. Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The answers are to be signed by the person making them and must be verified, dated, and signed in the presence of a notary public.

2. Please identify the person answering each interrogatory and provide his/her position or job title. If the person answering the interrogatory does not have personal knowledge of all information provided in his/her answer, identify each person who does have such

personal knowledge and each person who communicated the information to the person answering the interrogatory.

3. For each person asked to be identified or listed in the interrogatories, state in your response to that interrogatory, and to the extent known, his/her/their name, title, job description, if any, business and home address, and business and home phone number.

4. If an interrogatory is answered by referring to a document, attach the document as an exhibit to the answer and refer to the page and section where the answer to the interrogatory can be found.

5. An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.

6. When an individual interrogatory calls for an answer that involves more than one part, each part of the answer shall be clearly set out so that it is understandable.

7. All non-privileged information that you possess is to be divulged. If, after exercising due diligence to secure the information requested, you cannot answer an interrogatory or any portion thereof, in full, so state and answer to the extent possible.

8. If you decline to answer any interrogatory or part thereof based on a claim of privilege or any other claim:

a. Identify the grounds and reasons for withholding the information; and b. Disclose the facts upon which you rely in asserting your claim for privilege.

9. The answers are to include information in the possession, custody or control from any source of or available to you or your agents, attorneys, officers, directors, employees, consultants, servants, investigators, representatives, advisors or any other person acting on your behalf or under your control.

10. These interrogatories are intended to be continuing interrogatories pursuant to Rule 1-026 and 1-033 NMRA. Please supplement your answers in a timely and seasonable manner with any information within the scope of the interrogatories as may be acquired by you, your agents, attorneys or representatives following the original answering of these interrogatories.

11. References to the singular shall include the plural or references to the plural shall include the singular. References to the masculine or feminine or neuter gender include the other genders.

12. Pursuant to Rule 1-30 (B)(6), NMRA, please designate the person or persons who will testify on behalf of the Settling Parties concerning each of the matters described above.”

Failure to Comply With Instructions

The Settling Parties blatantly ignored the above-cited Instructions, and they did

not even attempt to answer any of these Defendants’ Interrogatories. Instead, the

Settling Parties stated reasons for objections in lieu of any answers apparently thinking

their objections would replace having to provide answers to the Interrogatories.

The Settling Parties did not identify any person who reviewed or attempted to

answer the Interrogatories nor did Settling Parties provide such person’s position or job

title, business and home address, and business and home phone number.

The Settling Parties did not answer the Interrogatories by referring to documents,

and then attaching the documents as exhibits to the answer with reference to the page

and section where the answer to the interrogatory could be found.

Contrary to the Settling Parties’ Objections, the subject Interrogatories are not

objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or

contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.

The Settling Parties declined to answer certain of the Interrogatories of

Defendant B Square Ranch, LLC, or parts thereof, based on claims of privilege or other

claim. The Settling Parties failed to identify the grounds and reasons for withholding this

information; and they failed to disclose the facts upon which they relied in asserting their

claims for privilege.

The Settling Parties failed to divulge all non-privileged information that they

possessed.

Finally, after exercising due diligence to secure the information requested in the

Interrogatories when the Settling Parties could not answer an interrogatory, or any

portion thereof, in full, the Settling Parties did not answer the Interrogatories to the

extent that was possible.

Interrogatories propounded by Defendants B Square Ranch, LLC et al. to Settling Parties

The Interrogatories propounded by Defendants B Square Ranch, LLC et al. were

limited to the following discovery matters:

A. If the State of New Mexico or other water users on the San Juan River

suffer injuries or damages in the event there is insufficient water reasonably available to

New Mexico for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico, what are the procedures,

remedies or relief available to such parties?

B. If the direct flow of the San Juan River is insufficient to supply beneficial

uses under direct-flow water rights in New Mexico and to supply the amount of water

available from the Settlement Agreement for the uses by the Navajo Nation, what are

the procedures, remedies or relief available to the United States, the State of New

Mexico or other water users for an incorrect or inaccurate determination that this is

sufficient water reasonably available to New Mexico for the Navajo Nation’s uses in

New Mexico?

C. If the State of New Mexico, as the watermaster, does not properly

administer water rights and the diversion of water within the water stream in New

Mexico that is subject to the Settlement Agreement, what are the procedures, remedies

or relief available to the United States, the Navajo Nation or other water users for such

improper administration of the water available to New Mexico under the apportionment

made for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico?

D. Does the District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico have jurisdiction

in the event there is an incorrect or inaccurate determination that this is sufficient water

reasonably available to New Mexico for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico?

E. Does the District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico have jurisdiction

in the event there is an improper administration of the water available to New Mexico

under the apportionment made for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico?

F. What documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the State of

New Mexico, the United States of America and the Navajo Nation wherein these entities

have waived their sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may occur due to

an incorrect or inaccurate determination that this is sufficient water reasonably available

to New Mexico for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico?

G. What documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the State of

New Mexico, the United States of America and the Navajo Nation wherein these entities

have waived their sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries in the event there is

an improper administration of the water available to New Mexico under the

apportionment made for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico?

CONCLUSIONS

For the reasons stated above and since Settling Parties have not answered nor

responded to a single Interrogatory, Defendants B Square Ranch, LLC et al. are forced

to file this Motion for Order Compelling Answers/Responses to Interrogatories.

Settling Parties’ delay tactics in not answering/responding to the Interrogatories

of Defendants B Square Ranch, LLC et al. are deliberate and have resulted in these

Defendants incurring additional time, fees, costs and expenses that are not necessary.

This Motion will obviously be opposed and concurrence of counsel for the

Settling Parties has not been sought for the reasons stated herein.

Defendants B Square Ranch et al. have incurred expenses and fees in making

this Motion, and pursuant to Rule 1-037(A)(4) NMRA 2012, such expenses and fees

should be awarded to these Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Defendants B Square Ranch et al. pray for the entry of an

appropriate order granting this Motion for Order Compelling Answers/Responses to

Interrogatories, and for such other relief as the Court deems proper.

TULLY LAW FIRM, P. A. /s/ ________________________________ Richard T. C. Tully, Esq. Attorney for Defendants

B Square Ranch, LLC et al. P. O. Box 268 Farmington, NM 87499-0268 (505) 327-3388

EXHIBIT “A” STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel., D-1116-CV-75-184 STATE ENGINEER, HON. JAMES J. WECHSLER Presiding Judge Plaintiffs,

v. SAN JUAN RIVER ADJUCICATION THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Cause No. AB-07-1 Claims of the Navajo Nation Defendants,

B SQUARE RANCH, LLC ET AL.’s FIRST SET OF JOINT INTERROGATORIES TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

THE NAVAJO NATION AND THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

To: U.S. Department of Justice Navajo Nation Department of Justice c/o Andrew J. Guarino, Esq. c/o Stanley M. Pollack, Esq. Environmental & Natural Resources Div. and M. Kathryn Hoover, Esq. 999 18

th St., South Terrace, No. 370 P.O. Drawer 2010

Denver, CO 80202 Window Rock, AZ 86515 NM Office of the State Engineer NM Office of the State Engineer c/o Arianne Singer, Esq. c/o John W. Utton, Esq. Special Assistant Attorney General Special Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 25102 Sheehan & Sheehan, P.A. Santa Fe, NM 87504-5102 P.O. Box 271

Albuquerque, NM 87103 Pursuant to New Mexico Rules 1-026 and 1-033, NMRA; Local Rule 11-105; and the Court’s

February 3, 2012, Order Setting Schedule Governing Discovery and Remaining Proceedings (the

“Discovery Order”), B Square Ranch, LLC et al. hereby propound the following interrogatories to the

United States of America, the Navajo Nation, and the State of New Mexico, and request that each of

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: B Square Ranch, LLC et al., on behalf of certain Non-Settling Parties, propounds interrogatories to the Settling Parties NAME OF PARTY: B Square Ranch, LLC et al. NUMBER OF PAGES: DATE OF FILING: June 1, 2012

these three Settling Parties individually answer each interrogatory as required by the Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Court’s Discovery Order.

These interrogatories have been reviewed and approved by certain other Non-Settling Parties

and are propounded jointly with them. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Jicarilla Apache Nation do not

join in this discovery request. At this time, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Jicarilla Apache Nation are

participating in the Navajo Nation inter se subproceeding, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the

Jicarillla Apache Nation are claimants to the waters of the San Juan River Basin, but neither the Ute

Mountain Ute Tribe nor the Jicarilla Apache Nation have taken a position objecting to the Navajo Nation’s

settlement efforts.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it

is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The answers

are to be signed by the person making them and must be verified, dated, and signed in the presence of a

notary public.

2. Please identify the person answering each interrogatory and provide his/her position or

job title. If the person answering the interrogatory does not have personal knowledge of all information

provided in his/her answer, identify each person who does have such personal knowledge and each

person who communicated the information to the person answering the interrogatory.

3. For each person asked to be identified or listed in the interrogatories, state in your

response to that interrogatory, and to the extent known, his/her/their name, title, job description, if any,

business and home address, and business and home phone number.

4. If an interrogatory is answered by referring to a document, attach the document as an

exhibit to the answer and refer to the page and section where the answer to the interrogatory can be

found.

5. An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory

involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.

6. When an individual interrogatory calls for an answer that involves more than one part,

each part of the answer shall be clearly set out so that it is understandable.

7. All non-privileged information that you possess is to be divulged. If, after exercising due

diligence to secure the information requested, you cannot answer an interrogatory or any portion thereof,

in full, so state and answer to the extent possible.

8. If you decline to answer any interrogatory or part thereof based on a claim of privilege or

any other claim:

a. Identify the grounds and reasons for withholding the information; and

b. Disclose the facts upon which you rely in asserting your claim for privilege.

9. The answers are to include information in the possession, custody or control from any

source of or available to you or your agents, attorneys, officers, directors, employees, consultants,

servants, investigators, representatives, advisors or any other person acting on your behalf or under your

control.

10. These interrogatories are intended to be continuing interrogatories pursuant to Rule 1-

026 and 1-033 NMRA. Please supplement your answers in a timely and seasonable manner with any

information within the scope of the interrogatories as may be acquired by you, your agents, attorneys or

representatives following the original answering of these interrogatories.

11. References to the singular shall include the plural or references to the plural shall include

the singular. References to the masculine or feminine or neuter gender include the other genders.

12. Pursuant to Rule 1-30 (B)(6), NMRA, please designate the person or

persons who will testify on behalf of the Settling Parties concerning each of the matters described above.

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Introduction

The proposed Navajo Nation Water Rights Settlement Agreement for the San Juan River Basin in

New Mexico and its associated documents (Settlement Agreement”) state there must be a determination

declaring there is sufficient water reasonably likely to be available to New Mexico under the

apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico

under the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project and for existing and authorized Navajo and non-Navajo

uses from the San Juan River Basin in New Mexico.

1. In the event the determination that there is sufficient water reasonably available to New

Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s

uses in New Mexico is not accurate, and the United States of America, the State of New Mexico and

other water users on the San Juan River suffer injuries or damages due to such determination, please

describe the procedures, remedies and relief available to such parties and other water users for such

incorrect or inaccurate determination.

ANSWER:

2. In the event the direct flow of the San Juan River is insufficient to supply beneficial uses

under direct-flow water rights in New Mexico and to supply the amount of water available from the

Settlement Agreement for the Navajo Nation’s uses, please describe the procedures, remedies and relief

available to the United States of America, the State of New Mexico and other water users for an incorrect

or inaccurate determination that there is sufficient water reasonably available to New Mexico under the

apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.

ANSWER:

Introduction

The State of New Mexico is to serve as the watermaster for the purpose of administering water

rights and the diversion of water within the water stream system in New Mexico subject to the Settlement

Agreement.

3. In the event the State of New Mexico does not properly administer the water rights and

the diversion of water within the water stream system in New Mexico that are subject to the Settlement

Agreement, please describe the procedures, remedies and relief available to the Navajo Nation, the

United States of America and the other water users for such improper administration of the water

available to New Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the

Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.

ANSWER:

Introduction

The District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico, as the court in the above-styled action, has

jurisdiction pursuant to 43 U.S.C. Section 666 over the terms and conditions of the Settlement

Agreement. However, the San Juan County District Court does not have jurisdiction over the

interpretation or determinations of the Mexican Water Treaty, the Colorado River Compact, the Upper

Colorado River Basin Compact, the La Plata River Compact or the Animas-La Plata Project Compact.

4. Please state whether the San Juan County District Court has jurisdiction in the event

there is an incorrect or inaccurate determination that there is sufficient water reasonably available to New

Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s

uses in New Mexico

ANSWER:

5. Please state whether the San Juan County District Court has jurisdiction in the event

there is an improper administration of the water available to New Mexico under the apportionment made

by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.

ANSWER:

6. State whether any documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the Navajo Nation

Tribal Council or any other governing or advisory body of the Navajo Nation wherein the Navajo Nation

has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may occur to the United States of

America, the State of New Mexico or other water users for an incorrect determination of the determination

that there is sufficient water reasonably available to New Mexico under the apportionment made by the

Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.

ANSWER:

7. State whether any documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the United States

of America or any other governing or advisory body of the United States of America wherein the United

States of America has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may occur to the

Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico or other water users for an incorrect determination of the

determination that there is sufficient water reasonably available to New Mexico under the apportionment

made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.

ANSWER:

8. State whether any documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the State of New

Mexico or any other governing or advisory body of the State of New Mexico wherein the State of New

Mexico has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may occur to the Navajo

Nation, the United States of America or other water users for an incorrect determination of the

determination that there is sufficient water reasonably available to New Mexico under the apportionment

made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.

ANSWER:


Tribal Council or any other governing or advisory body of the Navajo Nation wherein the Navajo Nation

has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may occur to the United States of

America, the State of New Mexico or other water users for an improper administration of the water



ANSWER:


of America or any other governing or advisory body of the United States of America wherein the United

States has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may occur to the Navajo

Nation, the State of New Mexico or other water users for the improper administration of the water



ANSWER:


Mexico or any other governing or advisory body of the State of New Mexico wherein the State of New

Mexico has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may occur to the Navajo

Nation, the United States of America or other water users for the improper administration of the water



ANSWER:

12. If any of the documents described in Interrogatories 6 through 11 above have been

reviewed and/or approved by the above-described parties, please identify and describe these documents

and attach copies to your answers and responses to these Interrogatories.

ANSWER:

13. Pursuant to Rule 1-030(B)(6), NMRA, please designate the person(s) who will testify on

behalf of each of the Settling Parties concerning the matters addressed in each of the foregoing

interrogatories.

ANSWER:

Respectfully submitted,

TULLY LAW FIRM, P. A.

/s/ ________________________________ Richard T. C. Tully, Esq. Attorney for B Square Ranch, LLC et al. P.O. Box 268 Farmington, NM 8799-0268 (505) 327-3388

wateradjudicationdiscovery

EXHIBIT “B”

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

SAN JUAN COUNTY

THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. STATE ENGINEER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants,

THE JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE AND THE

NAVAJO NATION, Defendant-Intervenors. NAME OF PARTY: State of New Mexico ex rel. State Engineer (“the

State”)

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: The State submits its Objections to B Square Ranch, LLC et al’s

First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation, and the

State of New Mexico pursuant to paragraph 2(d) of the Court’s Order entered February 3, as

amended by the Court’s Order entered April 4, 2012.

NUMBER OF PAGES: _9_

DATE OF FILING: June 15, 2012

THE STATE’S OBJECTIONS TO B SQUARE RANCH, LLLC ET AL.’s FIRST SET

OF JOINT INTERROGATORIES TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

THE NAVAJO NATION AND THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

The State of New Mexico (“the State”) objects to B Square Ranch, LLC et al’s First Set of Joint

Interrogatiores to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State of New Mexico

as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. The State objects to the interrogatories, and does not waive its objections, to the extent

that they call for or relate to information or documents, if any, protected under the attorney-client

privilege or as confidential work product, including any information, communication and/or

document protected by any absolute or qualified privilege pursuant to Rules 1-026, 1-034 and 11-

503, NMRA 2012. The State reserves its right to assert a claim of privilege and work product for

protection of trial preparation materials and any other privileged and confidential work product that

may be related to the interrogatories and requests but fall outside the permitted scope of discovery. In

the event that any information, communication or document that is subject to a claim of privilege or

work product protection is inadvertently produced, upon notice from the State of the inadvertent

disclosure, any party receiving the information, communication or document must promptly return

the specified information and any copies and inform the State in writing of its compliance with the

State's request.

2. The State objects to all instructions, definitions, interrogatories and requests to the extent

that they seek to change, amend, alter, or impose requirements in discovery that depart from the

requirements for written discovery set forth in the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of

the State of New Mexico, any applicable local rules or the orders of the Court.

3. The State objects to the interrogatories and requests to the extent that they request any

documents or information not required to satisfy the standard of proof adopted by the Court by

Amended Order Establishing the Legal Standards for Evaluating the Proposed Decrees and

Respective Burdens of Proof, dated April 19, 2012.

4. The State objects to the interrogatories and requests to the extent that they are not

directed to the State and to the extent they request any documents or information that are publically

available or which Defendants are equally capable of obtaining from some other source that is more

convenient, less burdensome and less expensive. Rule 1-026(B)(2).

5. In responding to these interrogatories and requests, the State reserves all evidentiary

objections to any responses or documents that may be offered in evidence at a trial.

6. The State reserves the right to supplement its objections.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Introduction

The proposed Navajo Nation Water Rights Settlement Agreement for the San Juan River

Basin in New Mexico and its associated documents (Settlement Agreement”) state there must be a

determination declaring there is sufficient water reasonably likely to be available to New Mexico

under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses

in New Mexico under the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project and for existing and authorized

Navajo and non-Navajo uses from the San Juan River Basin in New Mexico.

1. In the event the determination that there is sufficient water reasonably available to

New Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the

Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico is not accurate, and the United States of America, the

State of New Mexico and other water users on the San Juan River suffer injuries or damages

due to such determination, please describe the procedures, remedies and relief available to

such parties and other water users for such incorrect or inaccurate determination.

Objection. The State objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, not limited in

scope, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. This is an expedited inter se proceeding to adjudicate the Navajo Nation’s water

rights by the entry of the Proposed Decrees in the San Juan Adjudication. The apportionment of

water under the Upper Colorado River Compact is not within the scope of the San Juan Adjudication

or this inter se proceeding on the Proposed Decrees of the Navajo Nation’s water rights. Rule 1-026

(B)(1), NMRA 2012. The State also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is speculative

and calls exclusively for a legal conclusion and requests the State to conduct analyses, and provide

information protected under the attorney-client privilege or as confidential work product.

2. In the event the direct flow of the San Juan River is insufficient to supply

beneficial uses under direct-flow water rights in New Mexico and to supply the

amount of water available from the Settlement Agreement for the Navajo Nation’s

uses, please describe the procedures, remedies and relief available to the United

States of America, the State of New Mexico and other water users for an incorrect

or inaccurate determination that there is sufficient water reasonably available to

New Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact

for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.

Objection. Please see the State’s objection to Interrogatory No.1, above.

Introduction

The State of New Mexico is to serve as the watermaster for the purpose of administering

water rights and the diversion of water within the water stream system in New Mexico subject to the

Settlement Agreement.

3. In the event the State of New Mexico does not properly administer the water rights

and the diversion of water within the water stream system in New Mexico that are

subject to the Settlement Agreement, please describe the procedures, remedies and

relief available to the Navajo Nation, the United States of America and the other

water users for such improper administration of the water available to New Mexico

under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the



Introduction

The District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico, as the court in the above-styled action,

has jurisdiction pursuant to 43 U.S.C. Section 666 over the terms and conditions of the Settlement


interpretation or determinations of the Mexican Water Treaty, the Colorado River Compact, the

Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, the La Plata River Compact or the Animas-La Plata Project

Compact.

4. Please state whether the San Juan County District Court has jurisdiction in the

event there is an incorrect or inaccurate determination that there is sufficient water

reasonably available to New Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper

Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.


5. Please state whether the San Juan County District Court has jurisdiction in the

event there is an improper administration of the water available to New Mexico



6. State whether any documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the Navajo

Nation Tribal Council or any other governing or advisory body of the Navajo

Nation wherein the Navajo Nation has waived its sovereign immunity for any

damages or injuries that may occur to the United States of America, the State of

New Mexico or other water users for an incorrect determination of the

determination that there is sufficient water reasonably available to New Mexico




7. State whether any documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the United

States of America or any other governing or advisory body of the United States of

America wherein the United States of America has waived its sovereign immunity

for any damages or injuries that may occur to the Navajo Nation, the State of New

Mexico or other water users for an incorrect determination of the determination

that there is sufficient water reasonably available to New Mexico under the

apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo

Nation’s uses in New Mexico.


8. State whether any documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the State of

New Mexico or any other governing or advisory body of the State of New Mexico wherein the State

of New Mexico has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may

occur to the Navajo Nation, the United States of America or other water users for an incorrect

determination of the determination that there is sufficient water reasonably available to New Mexico


in New Mexico.



Tribal Council or any other governing or advisory body of the Navajo Nation wherein

the Navajo Nation has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that

may occur to the United States of America, the State of New Mexico or other water users

for an improper administration of the water available to New Mexico under the

apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses

in New Mexico.



of America or any other governing or advisory body of the United States of America

wherein the United States has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries

that may occur to the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico or other water users for

the improper administration of the water available to New Mexico under the


in New Mexico.



Mexico or any other governing or advisory body of the State of New Mexico wherein the

State of New Mexico has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that

may occur to the Navajo Nation, the United States of America or other water users for

the improper administration of the water available to New Mexico under the


in New Mexico.


12. If any of the documents described in Interrogatories 6 through 11 above have been

reviewed and/or approved by the above-described parties, please identify and describe

these documents and attach copies to your answers and responses to these

Interrogatories.

Objection. Please see the State’s objections to Interrogatories Nos.6 - 11, above.

13. Pursuant to Rule 1-030(B)(6), NMRA, please designate the person(s) who will testify on

behalf of each of the Settling Parties concerning the matters addressed in each of the

foregoing interrogatories.

Objection. The State objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that discovery is not yet completed

and the Court has not issued a decision on whether there will be an evidentiary hearing. Trial

witnesses, if any, will be provided in accordance with a scheduling order from the Court.

Respectfully submitted, this 15th day of June, 2012.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Arianne Singer

Special Assistant Attorney General

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer

P.O. Box 25102

Santa Fe, NM 87504-5102

(505) 827-6150

John W. Utton

Special Assistant Attorney General

Sheehan & Sheehan, P.A

Post Office Box 271

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

(505)247-0411

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 15th day of June 2012, at approximately 5:00 pm, an electronic copy of

this Objections to B Square Ranch, LLC et al’s First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States

of America, the Navajo Nation, and the State of New Mexico was served by attaching an electronic

copy to an email sent to: [email protected].

___/s/_Arianne Singer___________


EXHIBIT”C”

ATTACHMENT F

OBJECTIONS OF THE NAVAJO NATION & THE UNITED STATES TO

THE TULLY INTERESTS’ FIRST SET OF JOINT INTERROGATORIES TO THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA, THE NAVAJO NATION AND THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

On June 1, 2012, the B Square Ranch, LLC et. al represented by Mr. Richard T. C. Tully (“Tully

Interests”) submitted discovery requests to the Settling Parties collectively. The Navajo Nation and

the United States collectively provide specific objections to the discovery requests described below.

Introduction to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2

The first two interrogatories include the following introduction as a predicate for the discovery

requested:

The proposed Navajo Nation Water Rights Settlement Agreement for the San Juan River Basin in

New Mexico and its associated documents (Settlement Agreement”) state there must be a

determination declaring there is sufficient water reasonably likely to be available to New Mexico


in New Mexico under the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project and for existing and authorized

Navajo and non-Navajo uses from the San Juan River Basin in New Mexico.

OBJECTION: a. Mischaracterization of Law and/or Fact. This introduction is a characterization of law and/or fact

that is either inaccurate, incomplete, or both inaccurate and incomplete. The Settlement Agreement

entered into by the Settling Parties on December 17, 2010 does not include the language referenced

in the introduction. As such, the discovery requests are vague and ambiguous making them

impossible to respond to and/or the discovery requests seek information that is neither relevant nor

reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible information. Rule 1-026 (B)(1) and

(B)(2)(a), NMRA 2012.

Interrogatory No. 1. In the event the determination that there is sufficient water reasonably

available to New Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for

the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico is not accurate, and the United States of America, the State

of New Mexico and other water users on the San Juan River suffer injuries or damages due to such

determination, please describe the procedures, remedies and

Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 2

relief available to such parties and other water users for such incorrect or inaccurate determination.

Interrogatory No. 2. In the event the direct flow of the San Juan River is insufficient to supply

beneficial uses under direct-flow water rights in New Mexico and to supply the amount of water

available from the Settlement Agreement for the Navajo Nation’s uses, please describe the

procedures, remedies and relief available to the United States of America, the State of New Mexico

and other water users for an incorrect or inaccurate determination that there is sufficient water

reasonably available to New Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River

Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.

OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1 & 2:

a. Privileged Information. The Navajo Nation and the United States have not performed the legal

analysis described or requested by the discovery request. To the extent that the discovery request

seeks to have the Navajo Nation and the United States perform a complex legal analysis

incorporating considerations of statute, case law, and a hypothetical set of broadly undefined

circumstances, the discovery request seeks information protected by the attorney-client

communication privilege and the attorney work product privilege. Such privileged information is not

subject to discovery and, therefore, the Navajo Nation and the United States object to the discovery

request. Rule 1-026 (B)(1), NMRA 2012.

b. Vague and Ambiguous. The discovery request seeks information based on unknown and

unspecified circumstances and principles of law. As such, the discovery request is vague and

ambiguous making it impossible to respond to and/or seeks information that is neither relevant nor

reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible information. Rule 1-026 (B)(1), NMRA

2012.

c. Not Relevant. The discovery request seeks information based on a hypothetical set of possibilities

unrelated to the Settlement Motion. The relevant standard to evaluate the Settlement Motion does not

require the evaluation of such hypothetical circumstances. Amended Order Establishing the Legal

Standards for Evaluating the Proposed Decrees and Respective Burdens of Proof, dated April 19,

2012. Therefore, the discovery request seeks information not relevant to any issue associated with the

Settlement Motion nor would the sought information lead to admissible evidence. The Settling

Parties object to the discovery request as unreasonable, unduly burdensome, overly broad, oppressive

and seeking information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Rule 1-026(B)(1), NMRA 2012.

d. Information/Material Already in Possession / Cumulative. The Navajo Nation and the United

States have not performed the legal analysis described or requested by the Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 3

discovery request. To the extent that the discovery request seeks to have the Navajo Nation and the

United States perform a complex legal analysis incorporating considerations of statute, case law, and

a hypothetical set of broadly undefined circumstances, the Tully Interests have the greater legal and

factual ability to perform the sought analysis than the Navajo Nation and the United States.

Therefore, to the extent that the discovery request seeks to have the Navajo Nation and the United

States perform such an unnecessary analysis, the Settling Parties object to the discovery requests as

the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, unduly burdensome, and is

obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive.

Rule 1-026(B)(2)(a), NMRA 2012.

Introduction to Interrogatory No. 3

Interrogatory No. 3 includes the following introduction as a predicate for the discovery requested:

The State of New Mexico is to serve as the watermaster for the purpose of administering water rights

and the diversion of water within the water stream system in New Mexico subject to the Settlement

Agreement.

Interrogatory No. 3. In the event the State of New Mexico does not properly administer the water

rights and the diversion of water within the water stream system in New Mexico that are subject to

the Settlement Agreement, please describe the procedures, remedies and relief available to the

Navajo Nation, the United States of America and the other water users for such improper

administration of the water available to New Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper


OBJECTIONS:











ambiguous making it impossible to respond to and/or seeks information that Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 4

is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible information. Rule 1-

026 (B)(1), NMRA 2012.











States have not performed the legal analysis described or requested by the discovery request. To the

extent that the discovery request seeks to have the Navajo Nation and the United States perform a

complex legal analysis incorporating considerations of statute, case law, and a hypothetical set of

broadly undefined circumstances, the Tully Interests have the greater legal and factual ability to

perform the sought analysis than the Navajo Nation and the United States. Therefore, to the extent

that the discovery request seeks to have the Navajo Nation and the United States perform such an

unnecessary analysis, the Settling Parties object to the discovery requests as the discovery sought is

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, unduly burdensome, and is obtainable from some other

source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Rule 1-026(B)(2)(a), NMRA

2012.

Introduction to Interrogatory Nos. 4 through 13

Interrogatories Nos. 4 through 13 include the following introduction as a predicate for the discovery

requested:

The District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico, as the court in the above-styled action, has

jurisdiction pursuant to 43 U.S.C. Section 666 over the terms and conditions of the Settlement


interpretation or determinations of the Mexican Water Treaty, the Colorado River Compact, the

Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, the La Plata River Compact or the Animas-La Plata Project

Compact.


OBJECTION:

a. Mischaracterization of Law and/or Fact. This introduction is a characterization of law and/or fact

that is either inaccurate, incomplete, or both inaccurate and incomplete. The Settlement Agreement

entered into by the Settling Parties on December 17, 2010 does not include the language referenced

in the introduction. As such, the discovery requests are vague and ambiguous making them

impossible to respond to and/or the discovery requests seek information that is neither relevant nor

reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible information. Rule 1-026 (B)(1) and

(B)(2)(a), NMRA 2012.

Interrogatory No. 4. Please state whether the San Juan County District Court has jurisdiction in the

event there is an incorrect or inaccurate determination that there is sufficient water reasonably

available to New Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for

the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.

Interrogatory No. 5. Please state whether the San Juan County District Court has jurisdiction in the

event there is an improper administration of the water available to New Mexico under the

apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New

Mexico.

OBJECTIONS to INTERROGATORIES 4 & 5:













2012.




Standards for Evaluating the Proposed Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 6

Decrees and Respective Burdens of Proof, dated April 19, 2012. Therefore, the discovery request

seeks information not relevant to any issue associated with the Settlement Motion nor would the

sought information lead to admissible evidence. The Settling Parties object to the discovery request

as unreasonable, unduly burdensome, overly broad, oppressive and seeking information that is

neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 1-

026(B)(1), NMRA 2012.


States have not performed the legal analysis described or requested by the discovery request. To the

extent that the discovery request seeks to have the Navajo Nation and the United States perform a

complex legal analysis incorporating considerations of statute, case law, and a hypothetical set of

broadly undefined circumstances, the Tully Interests have the greater legal and factual ability to






2012.

Interrogatory No. 6. State whether any documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the

Navajo Nation Tribal Council or any other governing or advisory body of the Navajo Nation wherein

the Navajo Nation has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may occur to

the United States of America, the State of New Mexico or other water users for an incorrect



in New Mexico.

OBJECTIONS:

a. Not Directed to All Settling Parties. Though this discovery request is directed to all three Settling

Parties (the United States, the Navajo Nation, and the State of New Mexico), the discovery request is

specifically directed exclusively to the conduct and actions of the Navajo Nation. As such, this

discovery request is not directed to the United States and the United States has no obligation to

respond to this discovery request. To the extent the discovery request is directed to the United States,

the United States objects that the request is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, unduly

burdensome, and is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and

less expensive. Rule 1-026(B)(2)(a), NMRA 2012.

b. Privileged Information. The discovery request appears to be a request to identify documents based

on a legal analysis that the Navajo Nation and the United States have Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 7

not performed. To the extent that the discovery request seeks to have the Navajo Nation and the


a hypothetical set of broadly undefined circumstances, the discovery request seeks information

protected by the attorney-client communication privilege and the attorney work product privilege.

Such privileged information is not subject to discovery and, therefore, the Navajo Nation and the

United States object to the discovery request. Rule 1-026 (B)(1), NMRA 2012.

c. Vague and Ambiguous. The discovery request seeks information based on unknown and




2012.

d. Not Relevant. The discovery request seeks information based on a hypothetical set of possibilities









e. Information/Material Already in Possession / Cumulative. The discovery request appears to be a

request to identify documents based on a legal analysis that the Navajo Nation and the United States

have not performed. To the extent that the discovery request seeks to have the Navajo Nation and the








Rule 1-026(B)(2)(a), NMRA 2012.


United States of America or any other governing or advisory body of the United States of Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 8

America wherein the United States of America has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages

or injuries that may occur to the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico or other water users for an

incorrect determination of the determination that there is sufficient water reasonably available to

New Mexico under the apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo

Nation’s uses in New Mexico.

OBJECTIONS:



specifically directed exclusively to the conduct and actions of the United States. As such, this

discovery request is not directed to the Navajo Nation and the Navajo Nation has no obligation to

respond to this discovery request. To the extent the discovery request is directed to the Navajo

Nation, the Navajo Nation objects that the request is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, unduly




on a legal analysis that the Navajo Nation and the United States have not performed. To the extent

that the discovery request seeks to have the Navajo Nation and the United States perform a complex

legal analysis incorporating considerations of statute, case law, and a hypothetical set of broadly

undefined circumstances, the discovery request seeks information protected by the attorney-client








2012.








and seeking information that is neither relevant nor Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 9

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 1-026(B)(1), NMRA

2012.











Rule 1-026(B)(2)(a), NMRA 2012.

Interrogatory No. 8. State whether any documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the State

of New Mexico or any other governing or advisory body of the State of New Mexico wherein the

State of New Mexico has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may occur

to the Navajo Nation, the United States of America or other water users for an incorrect



in New Mexico.

OBJECTIONS:



specifically directed exclusively to the conduct and actions of the State of New Mexico. As such, this

discovery request is not directed to the Navajo Nation or the United States, and the Navajo Nation

and the United States have no obligation to respond to this discovery request. To the extent the

discovery request is directed to the Navajo Nation and the United States, Navajo Nation and the

United States objects that the request is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, unduly burdensome,

and is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less

expensive. Rule 1-026(B)(2)(a), NMRA 2012.





undefined Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 10









2012.




















Rule 1-026(B)(2)(a), NMRA 2012.


Navajo Nation Tribal Council or any other governing or advisory body of the Navajo Nation wherein

the Navajo Nation has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may occur to

the United States of America, the State of New Mexico or other water users for an improper

administration of the water available to New Mexico under the


apportionment made by the Upper Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New

Mexico.

OBJECTIONS:





















2012.









admissible evidence. Rule 1-026(B)(1), NMRA 2012. Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 12











Rule 1-026(B)(2)(a), NMRA 2012.


United States of America or any other governing or advisory body of the United States of America

wherein the United States has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may

occur to the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico or other water users for the improper



OBJECTIONS:



specifically directed exclusively to the conduct and actions of the United States. As such, this

discovery request is not directed to the Navajo Nation and the Navajo Nation has no obligation to

respond to this discovery request. To the extent the discovery request is directed to the Navajo

Nation, the Navajo Nation objects that the request is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, unduly









subject to discovery and, therefore, the Navajo Nation Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 13

and the United States object to the discovery request. Rule 1-026 (B)(1), NMRA 2012.





2012.




















Rule 1-026(B)(2)(a), NMRA 2012.


State of New Mexico or any other governing or advisory body of the State of New Mexico wherein

the State of New Mexico has waived its sovereign immunity for any damages or injuries that may

occur to the Navajo Nation, the United States of America or other water users for the improper


Colorado River Compact for the Navajo Nation’s uses in New Mexico.Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 14





















2012.














a hypothetical set Attachment F Objections of the Navajo Nation & the United States to the Tully Interests’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories to the United States of America, the Navajo Nation and the State Of New Mexico Page 15

of broadly undefined circumstances, the Tully Interests have the greater legal and factual ability to






2012.

Interrogatory No. 12. If any of the documents described in Interrogatories 6 through 11 above have

been reviewed and/or approved by the above-described parties, please identify and describe these

documents and attach copies to your answers and responses to these Interrogatories.

OBJECTIONS:

a. As the discovery request incorporates reference to Interrogatory Nos. 6 through 11, the Navajo

Nation and the United States incorporate those objections articulated with respect to Interrogatory

Nos. 6 through 11 as the objections to this discovery request.

Interrogatory No. 13. Pursuant to Rule 1-030(B)(6), NMRA, please designate the person(s) who

will testify on behalf of each of the Settling Parties concerning the matters addressed in each of the

foregoing interrogatories.

OBJECTION:

a. As the discovery request incorporates reference to all previous interrogatories, the Navajo Nation

and the United States incorporate those objections articulated with respect to all previous

interrogatory as the objections to this discovery request.

state of new mexico county of san juan...

Documents