ST ATE TH CAROUNA FileNo. 11-CVS-1301 Film No.

BRUNSWICK County ::I In The General Court Of Justice

❑ District Court ® Superior Court

Name Of :.

Plaintiff THE ROYAL OAK CONCERNED CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, CURTIS MCMILLIAN and DENNIS MCMILLIAN

VERSUS MOTION COVER SHEET

Name Of Defendant BRUNSWICK COUNTY

Name And Address Of Attorney Or Party, if Not Represented Jackie Terry Hughes, Esquire, NCSB # 25884 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP 150 Fayetteville Street; Suite 2100 Raleigh, NC 27602

Name Of Firm

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

OTION ;i~ cH ~i+. U;..4c -p

Type of Motion or each motion, enter code

for Type of Motion from list on By (Identify Party) Against {Identify Part)) reverse side; if OTHR,

describe motion)

Other (OTHR) ❑ All BRUNSWICK( COUNTY ❑ All Plaintiff

Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Depositions of Commissioner Scott Phillips and Assistant County Manager Steve Stone

❑ All ❑ All

❑ All ❑ All

❑ All ❑ All

❑ All ❑ All

❑ All ❑ All

Date October 31, 2012 .

c Signature Of Attomey/P ~, !~ , .., i

//

NOTE: Alt papers filed in civil actions, special proceedings and estates shall include as the first t page.bf the filing a cover sheet summarizing the critical elements of the fling in a format prescribed by the Administrative office the Courts. The Clerk of Sup6rior Court shall require a party to refile any paper which does not include the required Cover sheet.

AOC-CV-752

Rev. 11 /96 (Over)

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

J

11-CVS-1301 COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK

NOW COMES Defendant, by and through counsel, and pursuant to Rules 26(c) and 30 of

the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves the Court to enter a protective order

prohibiting Plaintiffs from deposing Commissioner Scott Phillips and Assistant Manager Steve

Stone. In support of the Motion, the County states as follows:

1. Plaintiffs describe their lawsuit as a "civil rights" and "environmental justice" case and assert multiple claims in an attempt to prevent the proposed expansion of the County's construction and debris landfill and its alleged impact on the Royal Oak Community. Although the Brunswick County Planning Board voted on March 28, 2012 to deny the County's application for a permit to expand the landfill, Plaintiffs continue to challenge the rezoning of the land on which the expansion would occur.

2. Plaintiffs claim that in addition to the placement and proposed expansion of the landfill, the County has over-burdened them by placing other unwanted land-uses in Royal Oak and by failing to run County water and sewer infrastructure to the rural community. (See Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A)

The Plaintiffs have already served multiple rounds of burdensome discovery requests that have consumed significant County resources to respond to, The County has produced thousands of pages of documents to date. Plaintiffs have also requested to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the County and have identified twenty (20) different topics that they would require information. (A

copy of Plaintiffs' email seeking a witness on 20 different 30(b)(6) topics is attached as Exhibit B).'

4. The Defendant agreed to produce 3 0(b)(6) witnesses to address the majority of the topics requested. (A copy of Defendant's letter to Plaintiffs' counsel confirming 30(b)(6) is attached as Exhibit C).

On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiffs unilaterally noticed the depositions of Brunswick County Commissioner Scott Phillips and Assistant County Manager Steve Stone for November 14 and 16, respectively. (A copy of these Notices is attached hereto as Exhibit D). Despite repeated requests, Plaintiffs have refused to provide their rationale for taking the depositions of these senior-level County officials.

6. The aforementioned County officials cannot be compelled to testify in this case about facts arising out of this case including the zoning or other land-use decisions because they are entitled to legislative and quasi-judicial immunity and they have a testimonial privilege.

7. Zoning and re-zoning are legislative acts, entitling local government officials to absolute legislative immunity for all actions taken in the course of "legitimate legislative activity." Novak v. City of High Point, No. COA02-727, 2003 N.C. App. LEXIS 1383, at *16 (2003); Northfield Development Co., Inc. v. City of Burlington, 136 N.C. App. 272, 281, 523 S.E.2d 743, 749, affd in part per curiam, rev, dismissed in part, 352 N.C. 671, 535 S.E.2d 32 (2000), aff'd in part, dismissed in part, vacated and remanded in part, 151 N.C. App. 297, 565 S.E.2d 279 (2002). Legislative immunity provides a testimonial privilege. Novak, 2003 N.C. App. LEXIS 1383, at *16-17; Northfield Dev., 136 N.C. App. at 282, 523 S.E.2d at 749. See also Allred v. City of Raleigh, 7 N.C. App. 602, 173 S.E.2d 533 (1970) (cross-examination of members of city council about the motives of a decision to re-zone prohibited), rev 'd on other grounds, 277 N.C. 530, 178 S.E.2d 432 (1971).

8. Local government officials are also entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions. Novak, 2003 N.C. App. LEXIS 1383, at *164 7; Northfield, 136 N.C. App. at 281, 523 S.E.2d at 749. The application of zoning policies to individual situations, applications, and requests is a quasi-judicial function. Novak, 2003 N.C. App. LEXIS 1383, at *17; Northfield, 136 N.C. App. at 282, 523 S.E.2d at 750. Quasi-judicial immunity also provides a testimonial privilege. Novak, 2003 N.C. App. LEXIS 1383, at *17; Northfield, 136 N.C. App. at 282, 523 S.E.2d at 749.

1 The Plaintiffs have not yet filed a Notice of the 30(b)(6) deposition yet, but expect that they will as soon as dates are confirmed for the deposition. The County can commit to producing its witnesses to address a number of these topics on November 28, 2012.

N

9. Not only are Commissioner Phillips and Assistant County Manager Stone entitled to testimonial imniunitvl, but the depositions must also be prohibited under North Carolina Rule 26(c) because requiring these high-ranking officials to testify- Nvould subject the County to "unreasonable annoya uce" and `undue burden." due to Plaintiffs fishing expedition.

10. Courts have recognized the risk of harassment where a party seeks to depose a high-tanking government or oilnei official without shoe mg that the official has unique or special knowledge of the facts at issue and that other less burdensome avenues for obtaining the information have already been exhausted. See, e.g,, Performance Sale & Mktg., LLC v. Lo re 's Cos., No. 5:07-CV-00140-RLV-DLH, 20.12 U.S. Dist LEXIS 131394, at "1.6-17 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2012). Plaintiffs ha e not demonstrated that Commissioner Phillips or Assistant County Manager Stonee have unique or special know-ledge of the facts at issue; nor have Plaintiffs established that any testimony these senior official would give would not be duplicative and cumulative of any testimony they may obtain through the planned Rule 30(h)(6) deposition, or other depositions of louver level officials.

1.1. Despite multiple goad faith attempts to consult with ' Plaintiffs' counsel and resolve this issue, Plaintiffs continue to insist on deposing Commissioner Phillips and Assistant County Manager Stone, leaving the Defendant no choice but to move to ,file the instant motiox for a protective order.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant the County's Motion for

a Protective Order prohibiting Plaintiffs from deposing Commissioner Phillips and Assistant

County Manager Stone, together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

proper.

This the 3lst day of October, 2012.

'OM LE Cek-R.LVLE SANLIRIDGE & RICE A Limited Liability Partnership

%~ r ` J / / •=/ _L Cf / Cr.:1L2 n? -

` cgttelfne Terry Hughes; 1 €SB No: 25854 Tulle B. Bradburn, NCSB No. 31412 Womble Carlyle Sandrid.ge & Rice ; LLP 1.50 Fayett.eville St.. Suite 21.00 P. 0. Box 831 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (97.9) 755-2169 Fax: (919) 755-6176 Email:.jbradbu:rn± ;wcsr:com Atiorneyys for Defendant

J

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the undersigned on October 31St, 2012, served DEFENDANT BRUNSWICK COUNTY'S i\'iO.tION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PROHIBIT DEPOSITIONS OF COMMISSIONER ISSIONER SCOT PHILLIPS AND ASSISTANT COUNTY TANAGER STEVE STONE in the above-captioned action upon all parties to this cause via

email and by depositing the original and/or a copy thereof, postage prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed to the attorney(s) for said parties as -follows:

Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix Esquire (via eii ail) Bethan Eynon. Esquire LTI`dC Center for Civil Rights 323 West Barbee Chapel Road Chapel Hill, NC 27517 emc l au gh @ em. ail,unc . edu beynon( email.unc.edu

Raymond E. 0 ;yens. Jr., Esquire (via email) Higgins & Owens. PLLC 5925 Carnegie Blvd Ste 530 Charluttte,, NC 28209 row wins @ 'igg1r so iw,ens.com

Jack Holtz .an, Esquire. Fair Housing Project, Legal Aid of NC (via email) Post Office Box 28068 Raleigh; .NC 27611 jack@ncjustice.org

Attorneys fir° Plainti; f, s

trrr

s'^ cCs

$4~ ueli~ze Terry Hughes. NCSBo. 25854 ~:It'1re B.Bradbur7n, NCSB No. 31412 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP J50 Fayetteville Street, Ste. 2100 P. 0. Box 831 Raleigh, NC 27602. Telephone: (919) 755-2169 Fax: (919) 755-6176

Email: jbradburn wcsr.corr Art r nepc far Defindani

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA • IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK I1-CVS-1301

)

THE ROYAL OAK CONCERNED CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, CURTIS ) MCMILLIAN and DENNIS ) MCMILLIAN, ) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

F'OR RELIEF Plaintiffs, )

V. )

BRUNSWICK COUNTY, )

Defendant--- ---)---------- __ _ _

Plaintiffs, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully state the following as

their Complaint against Defendant:

1. This is a civil rights action for declaratory and injunctive relief and

damages to remedy Defendant's illegal rezoning and violation of the rights of African

American and other residents of a predominantly African American community outside

of Supply in Brunswick County, North Carolina: On April 4, 2011, Defendant rezoned

parcels in Plaintiffs' community from Rural Residential to Industrial General, with the

express intent of expanding the existing landfill. The rezoning was conducted without

considering all other possible uses for the parcel as required by law, is illegal "spot"

zoning, is not compatible with the comprehensive land use plan, and is arbitrary and

ifi 6 NT

capricious and not based on a rational consideration of the general welfare of Plaintiffs or

the citizens of Brunswick County. -

2. This action also sterns from Defendant's long-existing racially

discriminatory pattern and practice of denying public water and sewer service to

Plaintiffs because they are African American and because they reside in a predominantly

African American neighborhood, and from Defendant's racially discriminatory pattern

and practice of disproportionately and intentionally burdening Plaintiffs - and their

community with hazardous and locally unwanted land uses ("LULUs"). The most recent

--- -----------anar ~ifestation-o€thi_s-patter-aa ~d-pr-actice-is-Llefendant's-deei-sior ~-to-r•~zr~n ~thc~par-asks-~n—

Plaintiffs' community to Industrial General to allow Defendant to double the size of the

existing landfill and permit even more numerous hazardous and unwanted land uses in

Plaintiffs' community.

3. Unlike other county residents without access to water and sewer services,

Plaintiffs not only lack these basic services, but have already endured a disproportionate

number of environmental hazards and now face a significant increase in environmental

hazards due to the rezoning and the dramatically expanded landfill, Thus, they are in

essence "hostages" to an imperiled and contaminated water supply and mounting

environmental hazards, with no end in sight. They are ignored as a community in their

request for basic services, yet serve as the priority location for virtually every foreseeable

environmental hazard in the county, Not only are the continual denial of services and

pattern and practice of locating LULUs a result of intentional discrimination by the.

Defendant against this community, these actions also have a disparate impact on this

2

African American community and have the effect of perpetuating segregation by

discouraging other residents from moving to Royal Oak.

4. , Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to North Carolina's Declaratory

Judgment Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-253 -267; N.C. Gen, Stat, §§ 153A-136(c) and 153A-

340-349; the North Carolina Fair Housing Act, as amended, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41A-1 et

seq. (NCFHA); and the Equal Protection Clause ofthe North Carolina Constitution, N.C.

Const. art, 1, §19.

-- -------5. Royal-Clalc-Gone] Gitns ,4ssoGiat ~ on ("1OGG~4—'} is an

unincorporated community association made up of citizens and residents of Brunswick

County, North Carolina, and exists for the purpose of protecting the quality of life and

environment of Royal Oak. ROCCA's membership, like the Royal Oak community

itself, is almost entirely African American.

6. ROCCA was formed about four years ago for the above stated purpose

and has continued to advocate on behalf ofthe community in opposition to hazardous and

unwanted land uses in Royal Oak, and for water and sewer service.

7. Lewis Dozier is the President of theRoyal Oak Concerned Citizens

Association and resides in the Royal Oak Community at 1060 Green Swamp Road NW,

in Supply, North Carolina.

• 8. The Royal Oak community is geographically defined as follows:

beginning at the intersection of N.C. Highway 211 and Big Macedonia Road; west on Big

Macedonia Road (houses on both sides of road) to Makatoka Rd; north on Makatoka

Road to Little Macedonia Road (including Hankins Way off to the west); east on Little

3

Macedonia Road; across N.C. Hwy. 211 Little Macedonia Road becomes Middle River

Road and extending along Middle River Road to its termination; southeast in a straight

line to the intersectionof Galloway and Landfill road; and southwest in a straight line to

the beginning point at the intersection of Big Macedonia Road and N.C. Hwy. 211;

including all the side streets contained within these boundaries; Running Brook Trail,

Skyview Land, Smith Rd, Zane Way, Pearl Way, Grant Way, Foxtrot Way, and

Deerview Way,

9. Plaintiff Curtis McMillian ("Rev. McMillian") is a citizen and resident of

- Bruns~a{ick.-Caunf34 earth-Garaiiaaa ReKtA ~ciulii-l-ian-is~fr-ican-Am~xicafl—aid-has _

resided at 412 Middle River Road, parcel 1370000802, in Supply, North Carolina, since

1964. Rev. McMillan owns his residence, and has never received water or sewer services

at this address,

10. Rev. McMillian is also part owner of more than fifty acres of land at 401

Smith Road East in Supply, North Carolina, parcel number 15200021, which abuts the

landfill expansion parcels to the southeast

11. Plaintiff Dennis McMillian is a citizen and resident of Brunswick County,

North Carolina. Plaintiff Dennis McMillian is African American, and has lived at 390

Middle River Road in Supply, North Carolina since 1995.

12. Defendant Brunswick County is a political subdivision organized under

the laws of the State of North Carolina, Defendant, pursuant to its legal authority, has, at

all times relevant to this lawsuit, made and implemented decisions as to which areas

within the County have received water and sewer services. For each of the claims alleged

in this complaint, any governmental immunity defense that may otherwise exist has been

4

waived, either by statute, established precedent or, upon information and belief, by the

existence of liability insurance coverage or other funds which indemnify Defendant from

liability for the acts alleged in this case.

• 13. Defendant includes each and every current Brunswick County

Commissioner in his or her official capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14, Defendant and its individual Commissioners are subject to the jurisdiction

of this Court pursuant to North Carolina's Declaratory Iudgment Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§

' 2 -3- 67fiI:C-. Gen-Stag.§--53A 340-34}; the -girth-C oiin-a ir-I-ousira-g-As a s

amended, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41A-I etseq. (NCFHA); and the Equal Protection Clause of

-the North Carolina Constitution, N.C. Const. art, I, § 19,

15. - Venue for this matter is properly in Brunswick County pursuant to N.C.

Gen. Stat. § § 1-77, 1-82 and 41A-I0.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16.. Brunswick County has a long history of racial segregation and

discrimination. Upon information and belief, the County maintained racially segregated

public facilities prior to enforcement of federal desegregation laws.

17. According to data from the 2010 Census, African Americans constitute

only about 11% of the County population. Thq census blocks encompassing the Royal

Oak community, however, are nearly 100% African-American. See maps showing

demography and population density, attached and incorporated herein as Exhibits I and

2.

5

18. The Royal Oak community has been predominantly African American

since the I 800s. Upon information and belief, the land in Royal Oak was available to

freed slaves, due to the fact that it was and continues tp be mostly swamp, had to be

drained before it could be farmed, and was thus worth much less money than the Iand

owned by white people.

19, Direct descendants of the freed slaves who owned parcels of land in Royal

Oak still reside . in Royal Oak today, and are members of ROCCA.

20. Brunswick 'County has experienced substantial residential development

--

par~ieular~y alrrnghe Boast i~ptrn-information afld beftefosefthose development ,

as well as the residences within them, are owned by white people.

21. Richmond Hills is a new housing development located adjacent to Royal

Oak, off Sig Macedonia Road.

22. Upon information and belief, most of the Richmond Hills properties

remain vacant due 'in large part to the location of the current landfill and other locally

unwanted land users (LULUS) in the area.

23. In 1981, members of ROCCA supported a bond referendum for the

extension of water and sewer infrastructure to the area which included Royal Oak

24. Due in large part to the efforts by African American residents, the bond

referendum passed.

25, Brunswick County, although it used bond funds for extension of water and

sewer infrastructure to County areas where white property owners resided, did not use •

that bond money to supply water and sewer service to the Royal Oak community,

6

26. ' An actual controversy exists between the Plaintiffs and Defendant with

respect to Plaintiffs' rights and other legal relations and obligations as alleged herein.

27. At least by 1983, Defendant sited and - began to operate an unlined

municipal solid waste landfill on Landfill Road in the Royal Oak community.

28. Due to new regulations effective in the 1990s, the unlined landfill was no

longer allowed to accept municipal solid waste and could only operate as a construction

and debris ("C&D") landfill, -

29. On information and belief, Defendant continued to dump municipaf waste

f afHdnds-int rthe-lsndfil-1-untH 1.99-7----

30. In 1999, Defendant commissioned a site evaluation for a new C&D

landfill which examined four tracts, all of which were located in the Royal Oak

community.

31. In 2007, Defendant commissioned a feasibility study for the proposed new

C&D landfill which considered various expansion options and hauling the waste out of

county, but did not consider any sites outside of the Royal Oak community.

32. Brunswick County adopted a Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO")

effective May I, 2007.

33, On information and belief, Defendant had determined, prior to April 15,

2009, to expand the C&D landfill, and its agents had met with representatives from the

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("NCDENR.") to

discuss the landfill expansion.

34. On October 19, 2009, Defendant held a public workshop on the C&D

landfill and discussed expanding the landfill.

I

7

35. In 2009, Defendant paid fines to the NCDBNR for illegal dumping of

asbestos, creosote, and chemically treated lumber into the landfill.

36_ On or about dune 3, 2010, Brunswick County purchased parcels numbered

1370000806 ("806") and 15200058 ("058") from Tripp's Construction, LLC. Said

parcels abut the existing C&D landfill on parcel 15200045.

37. Both parcels abut the Middle River, which divides the existing landfill,

15200045, from the newly acquired parcels 806 and 058.

38. On information and belief, Brunswick County purchased said parcels for

the-so Je-purpose-a-fexpanding -the-Cz -iandt H .

39, On November 15, 2010, the Brunswick County Commissioners discussed

the process to expand the landfill. Board Chair William Sue described the expansion as

"a long time coming." Plaintiff Curtis McMillian and other members of ROCCA

addressed the Board and spoke against expanding the landfill,

40. On December 20, 2010, Defendant held both a regular board meeting and

a special workshop on the landfill expansion. At both meetings Plaintiffs spoke against

the landfill expansion.

41. On information and belief, no members of the public spoke in favor of the

expansion at either meeting. - _

42. On January24, 2011, Defendant called ameeting to allow citizens to

express their opinions concerning the landfill expansion.

43. County officials were present at the January 24, 20-11 meeting to answer

questions and address concerns the community had about the landfill expansion.

8

44. Plaintiffs raised concerns at the meeting about the disproportionate burden

of health hazards born by African American residents due to the fact that the landfill and

the animal shelter were located in their community. • s

45. At the January 24, 2011 meeting, ROCCA member and Royal Oak

property owner James Hardy specifically requested that Defendant extend the water lines

to the Royal Oak community.

46. Mr. Hardy also raised concerns about the fact that the St. James

community, a relatively new, majority white housing development, has access to water

d-sewer-sefv-iees. -- -

47. The animal shelter used to be near the majority white Winding River

subdivision but was relocated to the Royal Oak community in 2000.

4& On March 1, 2010, Defendant commissioned a siting study for the

proposed expansion from Dewberry and Davis, Inc. The study only considered the

parcels in Royal Oak (806 and 058) acquired by the.00unty in June 2010.

49. Prior to April 4, 2011, parcels numbered 806 and 058 had been zoned

Rural Residential, as described in the UDO and the attached Brunswick County Zoning

Map dated December 10, 2010. See Exhibit 3 attached and incorporated herein,

50. Rural Low Density Residential and Industrial General are general zoning

districts which each contain numerous uses as of right, as well as conditional uses, as

outlined in Brunswick County's UDO sections 4.8, 4.10, and 5.2.3.

51. Property owned by the Plaintiffs and the property owned and rezoned by

the Defendant to expand the landfill is primarily surrounded by a large area uniformly

zoned Rural Residential. .

E

52. On December 13, 2010; the Brunswick County Planning Board considered

zoning amendment Z- 11-667 to rezone parcels numbered 806 and 058 from Rural

Residential to Industrial General. Plaintiffs spoke against the rezoning and the landfill

expansion. The rezoning was tabled until February 7, 2011 _

53. At the December 13, 2010 meeting, County Attorney Berg warned the

Planning Board not to consider specific uses in their zoning decision.

54. The expansion of the landfill was the only use considered' by the Planning

Board at the December 13, 2010 meeting.

-- — --- 55 —©n-information-and-belief, at-theBecernber-l-3 0+O-m etirrg-mmmenrber

of the public requested to speak or spoke in favor of the rezoning.

56. On February 7, 2011, the County Planning Board again considered Z-11-

667.

57. The expansion of the landfill was the only use considered by the Planning

Board at the February 7, 2011 meeting.

58. . At the February 7, 2011 meeting Plaintiffs again spoke against the

rezoning and the landfill expansion.

59.. On February 7, 2011, by a vote of 5-1, the Planning Board recommended

that Defendant approve the rezoning of portions of the two parcels from Rural

Residential to Industrial General.

60. The Brunswick County Planning Department found that the rezoning was

not consistent with the comprehensive land use plan.

61. The rezoning was not in accordance with the land use plan because the

parcels do not fit the requirements under the plan for Industrial General zoning,

10

including, among others, access to a major road, highway, or railroad; the prohibition

under Industrial General on residential uses which are prevalent in the area; and access to

needed emergency services, including fire protection.

62. There have been no changed circumstances in the area since the adoption

of the 2007 plan which would justify the rezoning.

63. On April 4, 2011, Defendant approved the rezoning of both parcels, in

their entirety, from Rural Residential to Industrial General,

64. Defendant failed to find, rior was there evidence presented at public

hearhrgs; tv firrd~hat th~larrdwas snitabf'e foratl -frrdustrrai General -ases---

65. Defendant failed to consider whether the property was suitable for all the

Industrial General uses.

66. Defendant gave no consideration to the objections raised and the public

oral and written comments submitted against the rezoning.

67. On information and belief, at no time have any members of the Royal Oak

community spoken at a Board of Commissioners meeting either in favor of the landfill, or

of rezoning the parcels to Industrial General.

68. On April 18, 2011, Defendant passed a resolution in support of expanding

the landfill onto the newly rezoned parcels.

69. Members ofROCCA spoke during the public hearing process related to

the rezoning decision, as representatives of their own rights and interests as well as the

rights and interests of all members of ROCCA and of residents of Royal Oak,

70. Parcels 806 and 058 are not appropriate for most uses allowed as of right

under Industrial General zoning because the parcels have neither water nor sewer service.

11

71. Parcels 806 and 058 are not appropriate for most uses allowed.as of right

under Industrial General zoning because they do not have access to either a railroad or a

major road.

72. Parcel 806 has road frontage only on Middle River Road NE, which is not

a major road,

73. Parcel number 058 has no road frontage.

74. Both parcels are immediately adjacent to and contain wetlands.

75, Both parcels are in the Royal Oak community, a predominantly low

iryMnAaestdarrfrdnnrnrntnrily.

76. On information and belief, there is sufficient other land in Brunswick

County that would be more appropriate for Industrial General zoning than the parcels

Defendant selected because of the parcels' proximity to wetlands, disproportionate

burden on an African American community, and lack of adequate road access for trucks

and emergency services,

77. On information and belief, a previous fire on Middle River Road led to the

death of a resident of Royal Oak because Middle River Road was inaccessible to

emergency vehicles.

78. On information and belief, Defendant has conducted no siting study to

identify other potential locations for a new C&D landfill outside of Royal Oak,

79. Defendant is under no obligation to operate a C&D landfill.

80. Defendant has no immediate need to operate a C&D landfill,

12 .

81. In Defendant's 2007 CAMA Land Use Plan, Defendant asserted that the

C&D landfill facility had excess capacity to support the County and potential growth th

throughout the planning period (2008-2012).

82. Defendant currently contracts with Sandlands C&D Landfill, LLC to

dispose of C&D waste outside of the county.

83. On information and belief, Sandlands and other private parties have the

capacity to accommodate all C&D waste produced in Brunswick County.

84. Most uses allowed-as of right under Industrial General zoning are

incompbithntiornnnyarrdwoufdhavedverffectorrthe

health, safety, quality of life, and property values of the surrounding community.

85. Uses that would be allowed under Industrial General zoning as of right

include, among others, agricultural industry, boat repair and manufacturing, incinerators

for the disposal of animal remains, and both heavy and light industry,

86. With approval by the planning board or board of adjustment, other uses

contemplated in an Industrial General zone include, among others, correctional facilities,

airports, major utilities, adult businesses, electronic gaming, racetracks, power plants,

junkyards, mining operations, landfills, and hazardous waste facilities.

87. The Royal Oak community has been subjected to increased heavy traffic

as a result of the location and operation of the current landfill in the community.

88. The Royal Oak community has been subjected to increased exposure to

noise, including from trucks and heavy equipment, as a result of•the location and

operation of the current landfill in the community.

13

89, ' The Royal Oak community has been subjected to increased pollution as a

.result ofthe Location and operation ofthe current landfill in the community;

90. The Royal Oak community has been subjected to foul odors as a result of

the location and operation of the current landfill in the community.

91. The Royal Oak community has been subjected to the diminution of

property values as a result ofthe location and operation of the current landfill in the

community.

92. The Royal Oak community has been subjected to'increased risk of fire as a

re xk fth it~c~tranand operatizrrrofth-e~arrentl lr3frll h the ccnmrrntsi

93. The above described adverse effects will be greatly increased with the

proposed landfill expansion, or with most uses allowed under Industrial General.

94, The rezoned property is small relative to the thousands of acres of Rural

Residential property that almost completely surrounds it.

95. Defendant failed to provide a clear showing of a reasonable basis for the

rezoning.

96. The proposed C&D landfill is not needed, as there are currently available

private alternatives, including recycling and hauling the waste to another landfill, as is

already done with a portion oftbe C&D waste and with most other forms of waste

generated in the County. -

97. The proposed C&D landfill is of no direct benefit to Plaintiffs and other

residents living near the landfill or to the surrounding community.

98. Defendant possesses the sole authority to approve and finance the

provision of water and sewer service to Plaintiffs 'and other residents of Royal Oak.

14

99. Upon information and belief, Defendant has encouraged, authorized,

facilitated and subsidized the constr-action and managementofwater-and sewer projects

which disproportionately serve white residents of Brunswick County.

100. Upon information and belief, Defendant has received, and continues to

receive, federal Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") funds that are used to

finance water and sanitary sewer programs within the County.

101. Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested that Defendant provide them and the

Royal Oak community with water and sewer services.

1-02—Defendant-has-to-this daTfa i-ed to provide-water-and sewerse

Plaintiffs.

103. Within the last three years, ROCCA member Lewis Dozier asked

Defendant why it failed to provide water and sewer access to Royal Oak when it installed -

water and sewer lines to the county animal shelter, which is located near the Royal Oak

community.

104. Defendant did not provide any reasonable explanation for stopping the

water and sewer access at the border of Royal Oak.

105. Upon information and belief Defendant has been, and is, generally aware

of the demographics of the Royal Oak community, and of the disparity in the

community's access to public water and sewer service.

106. Defendant continues to deny access fo public water and sewer service to

African American residents' homes, while providing that service to white residents'

homes.

15

I07. . Defendant provides different public. services to the Royal Oak community

-_--_ _ __ _ --because of the race of the residents.

108. Defendant has disproportionately burdened African American residents or

Brunswick County with the-harms that flow from living near Industrial General zoning,

by repeatedly, and as part of a pattern and practice of discrimination, locating Industrial

General zoned parcels near African American communities.

109. ' Based on an odds ratio test using 2010 Census block data, African

Americans have almost double the odds relative to whites of living within a half mile of a {

L-~L~3-i•n~rur~swiel~C-et-inty-T-here~s-a-one-iri-H~ 8£}-eharree-fiha#-this-result is-d ~t -

neutral decision-making.

110. The county is only 11% African American, but 98% of residents living

within 2500 feet of the landfill are African American.

111. Upon information and belief, Defendant's original siting of the solid waste

landfill and other LULUS in Plaintiffs' community was motivated by racially

discriminatory intent, has a disparate impact on African American residents, and

perpetuates residential segregation.

112, The presence of a landfill in or near a community makes thafcommunity a

less desirable place to live,

113. Since the original landfill siting and the approval and installation of the

current LULUS, Defendant has continued the pattern and practice of discrimination

against Plaintiffs by deciding, on April 4, 2011 to rezone the parcels Industrial General

and on April 18, 2011, to expand the current C&D landfill.

iL

114. In selecting the landfill'expansion site, Defendant substantially deviated

from its usual decision rnaking process.

115. Defendant purchased parcels 806 and 058 in June 2010 with the inient of

putting a landfill on the parcels.

116. Defendant then began the process of rezoning the parcels Industrial

General with the goal of siting the landfill there, without considering all other Industrial

General uses.

117. Within a few weeks of rezoning the parcel from Rural Residential to

lrid¢s r ai ~-~i'e b P[~Ia p spar olu i~o ppann rrent 1aml;fl•I3it ri

the new parcels.

118, In selecting the landfill expansion site, Defendant overlooked the fact that

the site is, for many reasons, not appropriate for such a purpose, or deliberately chose the

site without regard to its legal obligations,

119. There are other locations, not near or in a predominantly African

American community, which are better suited for a C&D landfill than this site.

120. Defendant failed to consider other sites for the landfill before purchasing

the land.

121. Defendant failed to consider alternative sites and socioeconomic and

demographic data, and failed to hold a public hearing prior to selecting or approving

parcels 806 and 058 for the new C & D landfill.

122. Defendant does not need to expand the landfill at all, as there are

alternative ways to dispose of future C&D waste.

17

123. In selecting the landfill expansion site, Defendant discriminated against

Plaintiffs because of their race, both in purpose and effect, and perpetuated residential

segregation.

124. Defendant knew or should have.known that residents of the predominantly

African American Royal Oak community disproportionately bear the harms that flow

from living.nearthe current landfill and other numerous LULUS near or in their

community.

I25. Defendant has intentionally and with discriminatory effect maintained a

atterrrarrd practk e f~isprolsorti~rrateip burden res€d of the R~yai-Oak

community with LULUS.

126. The pattern and practice of discrimination by Defendant, described above,

constitutes a continuingviolation of the rights of Plaintiffs.

127. Defendant has denied and interfered with, and is continuing to deny and

interfere with, the availability, habitability, and enjoyment of privileges and conditions of

use and ownership of Plaintiffs' properties by failing to provide water and sewer services,

the rezoning, the operation of the current landfill, and the landfill expansion.

128. Many ROCCA members, particularly those living closest to the landfill

and the animal shelter, including Plaintiffs Curtis and Rev. McMillian, are forced to

purchase bottled water for drinking and cooking , and must pay costs associated with

damage to their wells, hot water tanks , clothes and appliances resulting from their water

supply.

129. Because of his well water's foul taste, color , odor and effect on his

laundry, since the late 1980s, Rev. McMillian has purchased bottled water for drinking

18

and cooking, and uses'awatersoftener system. This causes him considerable expense.

and inconvenience. These are expenses riot borne by white residents with access to

public water provided by Defendant.

130. Rev. McMillian also has problems with his septic-system, resulting in

more expense and inconvenience. These are expenses not borne by white residents with

public sewer service provided by Defendant.

131. The value of Rev. McMillian's property has been substantially and

negatively affected by the denial of water and sewer services, the rezoning, the operation

Erez;nrrztstiarrdfiil; aa~i-th~-landfril exp~~sicrn.

132. Because of his well water's foul taste, color, odor, Plaintiff Dennis

McMillian buys bottled water for drinking and cooking.

133. Plaintiff Dennis McMillian had to replace his well several years ago when

his first well collapsed; however, he still frequently finds sand in the water pumped from

his well. All of these issues have caused him considerable expense and inconvenience.

For example, Plaintiff Dennis McMillian has purchased a whole-home water filtration

system due to the effect of his well water on laundry, as well as the water's foul taste,

color and odor. • V

134. The above described expenses and inconveniences are not borne by white

residents with access to public water provided by Defendant.

135, Mark Hardy's aunt, Francis Vereen, bequeathed her home, 613 Smith

Road in Supply, North Carolina, to Mark Hardy at her death in April 2010; Mark Hardy

wants to move into the house at that address, but has not been able to do so because of the

unavailability of clean drinking water.

19

136. During the summer of2010, James and Mark Hardy put in a new, deeper

well at 613 Smith Road in an effort to get better water. However, Defendant tested the

water from the new well and told the Hardys that the water was contaminated.

137. After failing at least two inspections and being treated with large amounts

of chlorine, the water from Hardy's well finally passed inspection in August, 2010, It has

not been tested since then. However, because the water at 613 Smith Road is so poor in

quality, including its color, taste and odor, the house at that address is uninhabitable

without access to public water services.

1~'8--Plninteffs'-pl~rerties-ate~igrtifrctlyzie~ahn=fidtree C~ ttlr~cl~nn~a1~

and sewer service, and due to the presence ofth e landfill and the Industrial General

zoning.

139. By denying water and sewer services to the Royal Oak community,

Defendant is denying and interfering with the availability, habitability, and enjoyment of

privileges of use and ownership of the property of ROCCA members.

I40. As a proximate result of Defendant's actions described above, Plaintiffs

havesuffered and are continuing to suffer injuries including, but not limited to,

deprivation of their constitutional and statutory rights, economic loss, humiliation,

embarrassment, and em otional distress.-

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (North Carolina Declaratory Judgment Act,

N.C. Gan. Stat. §1-254 et seq.) '

141, The preceding allegations in this Complaint are realleged and incorporated

by reference as if fully set forth herein.

20

142. The zoning ordinance Z-11-667 adopted on April 4, 2011 is unlawful,

invalid and void because Defendant failed to consider whether the targeted property was

suitable for all uses allowed under the new zoning.

143. The zoning ordinance Z-11-667 adopted on April 4, 2011 constitutes spot

zoning, in that it rezones a relatively small area belonging to a single owner which is

largely surrounded by a much larger area uniformly zoned Rural Residential, and

imposes fewer restrictions on the smaller tract than the large area.

144. The zoning ordinance Z-1 I-667 adopted on April 4, 2011 is unlawful,

rrvaiid; annid~pvt~ozrirrg because Hefenr#aryl --martte no ckea~-shov~inga-reasorrals • 3

basis for the rezoning.

145. Parcels 806 and 058 are or contain areas of environmental concern as

defined by the Coastal Area Management Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-100, et. seq.

146. The zoning ordinance Z -1 1-667 adopted on April 4, 2011 is unlawful,

invalid, and void because it does not conform to Defendant's comprehensive land use

plan as required by North Carolina General Statute § 153A-341 and the Coastal Area I:

Management Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-100, et. seq.

147. The zoning ordinance Z- 11-667 adopted on April 4, 2011 is unlawful,

invalid, and void because it was arbitrary and capricious and not based on a rational

consideration of the general welfare of Plaintiffs or the citizens of Brunswick County,

148. For the above reasons, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory judgment that

the rezoning was unlawful, invalid, and void. Plaintiffs are also entitled to other legal

and equitable relief

21

y, y 7 y~

f

SECOND CLAIM FOIL RELIEF (Violations of the No rth Carolina Fair Housing Act (NCFILA),

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41A-1 et sego)

149. The preceding allegations in this Complaint are realleged and incorporated

by reference as if fully set forth herein.

150. By the actions described above. Defendant has violated, and continues to

violate, the rights of Plaintiffs under the NCFHA, § 41A-1 et seq., by:

a. Discriminating on the basis of race in the terms, conditions, or privileges

ofthe provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale or

rertt~l efa dweHin -irrviala#ion-of en Stag 4-1 4(-aj{~); and

b. Interfering with Plaintiffs' exercise or enjoyment of their rights tinder the

NCFHA, in violation ofN.C. Gen. Stat. § 41A-4(e).

1 51. By the actions described above, Defendant has engaged in, and continues

to engage in a pattern and practice of discrimination against African American and other

residents of the Royal Oak community due to their race, or the racial composition of their

neighborhood, in violation of the NCFHA.

152. The past and continuing acts and conduct of the Defendant, described

above, were and are intentional., had and have discriminatory effect, perpetuate residential

segregation, and have been carried out willfully and with reckless indifference to the

protected rights of Plaintiffs and to the spirit and purpose of the NCFHA.

153. As a result of the Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and are

continuing to suffer great harm and injury, including but not limited to economic loss,

humiliation, embarrassment, and the deprivation of the right to access, enjoy and use

housing on.an equal basis with other persons regardless of race.

22

CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Equal Protection Clause, North Carolina Constitution Article I, § 19)

154. The preceding allegations in this Complaint are reall eged and incorporated

by reference as if fully set forth herein.

155. The above conduct of the Defendant has been taken under color of state

and local law.

156. By the actions described above, Defendant has deprived, and continues to

deprive, Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the North Carolina

Cnne titutinn and other laws

157. By the actions described above, Defendant has engaged in, and continues

to engage in a pattern and practice of discrimination against African American and other

residents of the Royal Oak community due to their race, or the racial composition of their

neighborhood, in violation of N.C. Const. Art. I. § I9.

158. The past and continuing acts and conduct of Defendant, described above,

were and are intentional, and have been carried out with malice and reckless indifference

to the protected rights of Plaintiffs.

159. Defendant has intentionally, knowingly, and continuously engaged in the

practices described above, with the intent of denying equal housing opportunities and

equal protection of law to Plaintiffs.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of N.C. Gen. Stat § 153A436(c))

160. The preceding allegations in this Second Amended Complaint are

realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

23

161. By failing to consider alternative sites and socioeconomic and

demographic data and failing to hold a public hearing prior to the selection or approval

ofparcels 806 and 058 for the'riew C & D landfill, Defendarif violated § 153A-136(c).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the following relief:

1. That the Court declare the April 4, 2001 rezoning void;

2. That the Court permanently enjoin the Defendant from rezoning parcel 806 and

05 8 toJustciaL al;

3. That the Court permanently enjoin the Defendant from expanding or otherwise

intensifying the use of the landfill in the Royal Oak community;

4, That Plaintiffs Dennis McMillian and Curtis McMillian be. awarded damages

including, without limitation, compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and

punitive dam ages in an amount to be determined at trial, in excess of$10,000.00,

plus interest, as allowed by law;

5. That the costs of this action, including attorneys fees, as allowed by law, be taxed

against Defendant;

6. That the Court declare the actions of the Defendant complained of herein to be in

violation of the North Carolina Fair Housing Act;

7. That the Court declare the actions of the Defendant complained of herein to be in

violation of the North Carolina Constitution;

8. That the Court declare the actions of the Defendant complained of herein to be in

violation ofG.S, § 153A- 136(c);

24

9. That the Defendant, its agents, employees, and successors be permanently

enjoined from discriminating on the basis of race against any persons in violation

of the State Fair Housing Act or Article I Section 19 of the North Carolina

Constitution;

10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper,

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand ajury

trial on all issues triable as of right.

Thi ~day of June, 2012.

UNC CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

6-

Elizabeth Haddix NC State Bar # 25818 E-mail: ernhaddix@unc.edu Telephone: (919) 843-9807 Peter Gilbert NC State Bar # 40415 E-mail: pgilbert .email.unc.edu Telephone: (919) 843-8197 Facsimile: (919) 843-8784 101 East Weaver Street, Campus Box 3382 Carrboro, NC 27510

E IGGINS & OWNS, PLLC Raymond E Owens, Jr. NC State Bar # 8439 E-mail: Rowens@higginsowens.com Telephone: (704) 295-4509 Facsim ile; (704) 5925 Carnegie Blvd Ste 530 Charlotte, NC 28209

25

FAIR HOUSING PROJECT, LEGAL AID OF NC Jack Holtzman NC State Bar# 13548 Ehiai1: jáck@icjustioe.brj PRO. Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611

Atorney.sfcr Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foreging Third Amended Complaint

following address:

Julie B. Bradburn & Jacqueline T. Hughes Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC 150 Fayetteville Street Suite 2100 Raleigh, NC 27601

This the eday of June,2012.

N

FM

From Haddix, Elizabeth McLaughlin [mailto:emclaugh@email.unc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 3:35 PM To: Hughes, Jackie Terry; Bradburn, Julie Cc: rowens@higginsowens.com; Jack Holtzman (jack@ncjustice,org); Gilbert, Peter; Eynon, Bethan R; Dorosin, Mark Subject: ROCCA et al. Issues for 30b6

Jackie,

We talked a while back about getting some dates for a Rule 30b6 deposition of Defendant, and understood that you all would need to see the matters to be addressed in the depo to Identify the individuals who will speak for Defendant. Although we reserve the right to add to this list, the matters we seek to depose Defendant about include the following:

1. Defendant's decision-making process related to expanding the county's current C&D landfill. 2. Defendant's decision-making process related to siting prior county landfills, including the closed MSW

landfills. 3. Defendant's decision-making process related to the selected parcels for the new C&D landfill, including

the purchase and rezoning of same parcels. 4. Defendant's decision-making process related to siting the Waste Water Treatment Plant in Royal Oak. 5. Defendant's decision-making process related to siting the spray fields adjacent to the landfill. 6. Defendant's decision-making process related to siting the animal shelter in Royal Oak 7. Defendant's decision-making process related to siting the Waste Transfer Station in Royal Oak. 8. Defendant's decision-making process related to water and sewer service access in Royal Oak and

provision of water and sewer generally in the county. 9. Defendant's Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, Requests for Documents, and

Requests for Admissions. 10. Defendant's Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. 11. Defendant's Water Capital Projects, including the 1973 and 1981 Water bonds, and allocations made by

the Board from 2005 to the present.

12. Defendant's Assessment Petition Policy

13. Water and Sewer Service Agreements, including reimbursement agreements for developers and "transmission line capital recovery fees"

14. Defendant's waste water master plan

15. CDBG fiends for water and sewer services and infrastructure

16. Defendant's Solid Waste Management Plan of 2019

17. Landfill violations — both C&D and MSW, both materials and monitoring wells `,. EFEN

1

18. Sludge from waste water treatment plants deposited in C&D landfill

19. Defendant's decisions relating to sand mines in the county

20. Defendant's Fair Housing Plan Analysis of Impediments, Fair Housing complaint procedures,. pas t complaints, and compliance with HUD regulations

lithe Defendant is agreeable to trying to mediate the case within the next two months, we'd like to schedule Defendant's deposition within two weeks after the mediation in the event both cases are not resolved at mediation. We look forward to hearing from you within the next week or so regarding potential dates for the 30b6. Of course, if you and Julie conferwith your client and mediation appears unlikely (based on the bottom-line issues raised in our call earlier this week as set out in Ray's letter today), we will likely go ahead and notice the 30b6 and possibly other depositions. We hope that the parties will come to a mediation in October ready to resolve what can be resolved, and look forward to hearing from you all soon on that.

Thanks,

Elizabeth

Elizabeth MUL. Haddix Staff Attorney UNC School of Law Center for Civil Rights 919-843-9807 (o) emhaddix@unc.edu

School of Law Annex 101 E . Weaver Street CB# 3382 Chapel Hill, NC 27599

IMPORTANT: This email transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. if the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agency responsible for delivering the communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone at 919 843 9807. Thank you.

WOMBLE ' CARLYLE

SANDRIDGE & RICE

A LIMITED LIAWLLTY

PARTNERSHIP

ISO Fayetteville Street Suite 2100 Raleigh, NC 27601

MngAddr~: Pose OfficBo S3l Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 755-2100 Fax: (919) 755-2130 wwwwcsrcom

Jackie Terry Hughes Direct Dial: (919) 755-2109 Direct Faxes 4842Qb3 E-mail: jaterry@wcsrcom

October 24, 2012

VIA EMAIL Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix, Esq. Center for Civil Rights 323 West Barbee Chapel Road Chapel Hill, NC 27517

Re: The Royal Oak Concerned Citizens Association, et al., v. Brunswick County File No.: 11 CVS 1301 Mark Hardy v. Brunswick County FileNo.; 12 CVS 1138

Dear Elizabeth:

Please allow this letter to address the request you made for a 30(t)(6) witness on behalf of the County in the above-noted matters, as well as your recent request for the deposition of Commissioner Phillips.

First, I am not available the week of November 12th so I cannot schedule any depositions during that week.

As it concerns your request via email for a 30(b)(6) witness on twenty (20) separate topics, we think this request goes beyond that required by the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. We do not believe such overbroad topics such as "landfill violations, both MSW and C&D" is an appropriate 30(b)(6) category, especially given the lack of timeframe, specificity and the fact that the MSW landfill has been closed for a number of years. Similarly, topics such as "sludge from waste water treatment plants deposited in C&D landfill" is similarly overly broad and lacks the specificity needed as to timing or specific alleged violations. In addition topics such as "Defendant's decisions relating to sand mines in the County" - lacks the appropriate specificity, especially since the County has advised you through our discovery responses that the County was not responsible for, nor did they have control over, a number of sand mines located within the County. Further questions regarding the 1973 and 1981 water bonds are not appropriate due to the age of this request and the fact that there is very little information still available. If you are looking for specific information on these water bonds, please let me know and we will try to determine what is still available. Likewise, information regarding the decision making process regarding the siting of "prior county landfills, including the closed MSW landfill" seeks information which due its age, the County does not have much information currently available. If there are specifics that you are looking for, please let me know and I will make the appropriate inquiries. In addition, we do not agree that "Defendant's Answer to Third Amended Complaint, nor Defendant's Answers to Discovery requests" are appropriate topics for

FIE

AWTS CALIFORNIA / DELAWARE / GEORGIA / MARYLAND / NORTH CAROLINA I SOUTH CAROLINA / VIRGINIA /

WoaSLE Pr

Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix RtYLE October 24, 2012

SANDRIDGE & RicE

a 30b6, as these responses were compiled through a number of different sources, and with the -assistance of counsel.--If you could.explain.what-you-are_seeking.fr om a witness withrespect to. ..__.... - -the County's Answer and discovery responses, that may assist in identifying someone who can provide you with the relevant information.

The County will be prepared to put up a witness (or witnesses), who can address the following topics which you have requested:

1. Defendant's decision-making process related to expanding the county's current C&D landfill.

2. Defendant's decision-making process related to the selected parcels for the new C&D landfill, including the purchase and rezoning of same parcels.

3. Defendant's decision-making process related to siting the Waste Water Treatment Plant in Royal Oak.

4. Defendant's decision-making process related to siting the spray fields adjacent to the landfill.

5. Defendant's decision-making process related to siting the animal shelter in Royal Oak.

6. Defendant's decision-making process related to siting the Waste Transfer Station in Royal Oak.

7. Defendant's decision-making process related to water and sewer service access in Royal Oak and provision of water and sewer generally in the county.

8. Defendant's Assessment Petition Policy 9. Water and Sewer Service Agreements, including reimbursement agreements for

developers and "transmission line capital recovery fees" 10. Defendant's waste water master plan. 11. CDBG funds for water and sewer services and infrastructure 12. Defendant's Solid Waste Management Plan of 2019 13. Defendant's Fair Housing Plan Analysis of Impediments, Fair Housing complaint

procedures, past complaints.

We are checking availability for the 30b6 deposition to take place on November 28` h. If this date does not work, are there any other dates you are available?

As it concerns your request for the deposition of Commissioner Phillips, we would like to know the rationale for the request. We cannot commit to producing him or to formally deny your request without understanding the basis for your request for a deposition.

The County would like to take the depositions of Lewis Dozier, Curtis McMillan, Dennis McMillan, Mark Hardy, James Hardy and John Hankins. Please provide dates when these

WOMB F - - Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix = CAR October 24, 2012 SANDRIDGE

& RICE

witnesses will be made available and we will provide you with deposition notices. We are __ _ available the 20''9 28-29'x' -30th and the week of December 3 &-We also-would lie-to-depo se .-

members the Royal Oak Concerned Citizens Association, Plaintiffs have made numerous allegations concerning how various members of Rocca have been harmed by the location of certain facilities, and have also been harmed by their living close to the borders of the landfill and how these individuals have been harmed by the lack of sewer and water. As they are part of the community in question, and have allegedly suffered harm, the County is entitled to conduct discovery of these individuals in order to ascertain their specific experiences and how these facilities have allegedly harmed them, what type of harms they have incurred, how their property has allegedly been devalued or harmed, and a number of other fact-specific questions relating to each property owner. The case law allows for such disclosure, and while we disagree as to its necessity, we can discuss a protective order to keep the names of ROCCA members confidential. We think this is the fairest way to allow the County to obtain the discovery it needs to defend itself, while protecting your clients' interests. in addition, we think the information regarding the individual members of Royal Oak also goes directly to the standing question, which is still ripe for adjudication at the summary judgment level.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding the above issues,

Very truly yours,

I I )I13 a itr'i ilk

JTH/vsm. cc; Peter Gilbert, Esq.

Bethan Eynon, Esq. Raymond E. Owens, Jr., Esq. Jack Holtzman, Esq.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

OOTtJffSW1K I 1-Cs'S- 1301

NOTICEAMENDED ID L4 i!J

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the

North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, will take the deposition of Brunswick County

Commissioner Scott Phillips by oral examination before a court reporter duly authorized to

administer oaths, on November 14, 2012 at Big Macedonia Church, 405 Big Macedonia Road,

Supply, North Carolina. The deposition will begin at 9:00 A.M. and end by 4:30 P.M.

This the 26th day of October, 2012.

IIJ[aL Dk1_ Iiii 1(ei:W

Q2hC /c Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix. NC State Bar # 25818 E-mail: emhaddix@unc.edu Telephone: (919) 445-0176 Facsimile: (919) 445-0163 Campus Box 3382 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3382

EXHIMT

ifiGGINS OWENS, PLLC Raymond E Owens, Jr. NC State Bar# 8439 E-mail: Rowens @higginsowens.com Telephone: (704) 295-4509 Facsimile: (704) 749-9451 5925 Carnegie Blvd Ste 530 Charlotte, NC 28209

FAIR HOUSING PROJECT, LEGAL Al]) OF NC Jack Holtzman NC State Bar # 13548 E-mail: jack@ncjustice.org Telephone: (919) 856-2165 Facsimile: (919) 856-2175 P.O Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611

Attorneys for Plaintiff

-2-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

---COUNTY OF BRUNSWIC

AMENDED NO (I) 00 MI 1A kI

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the

North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, will take the deposition of Brunswick County Assistant

County Manager Steve Stone by oral examination before a court reporter duly authorized to

administer oaths, on November 16, 2012 at Big Macedonia Church, 405 Big Macedonia Road,

Supply, North Carolina. The deposition will begin at 9:00 A.M. and end by 4:30 P.M.

This the 26th day of October, 2012,

M Elizabeth McLaughlin Haddix NC State Bar # 25818 E-mail: emhaddix@unc.edu Telephone: (919) 445-0176 Facsimile: (919) 445-0163 Campus Box 3382 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3382

HIGGINS OWENS, PLLC Raymond E Owens, Jr. NC State Bar # 8439 E-mail: Rowens@higginsoweiis.com Telephone: (704) 295-4509 Facsimile: (704) 749-9451 5925 Carnegie Blvd Ste 530 Charlotte, NC 28209

FAIR HOUSING PROJECT, LEGAL AID OF NC Jack Holtzman NC State Bar # 13548 E-mail: jack@ncjnstice.org Telephone: (919) 856-2165 Facsimile: (919) 856-2175 P.O. Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611

Attorneys for Plaintiff

L8191A 1 WF.1 D1 tVJ IN

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Deposition was served on Defendant by electronic and U.S. Mail to:

This thec aay of October, 2012.

-2-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK 11-CVS-1301

THE ROYAL OAK CONCERNED ) CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, CURTIS MCMILLIAN and DENNIS ) MCMILLIAN, )

ORDER Plaintiffs, )

)

V. )

)

BRUNSWICK COUNTY, ) )

Defendant. )

This Court now having considered the Defendant's Motion for Protective to Prohibit

the Depositions of County Commissioner Philips and Assistant County Manager Stone, and after

having considered all arguments of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for

Protective Order prohibiting the depositions of Commissioner Philips and Assistant County

Manager Stone is GRANTED.

So Ordered this day of , 2012.

Brunswick County Clerk of Superior Court

WCSR 7530619v1