United States of America v. Gibson Wine Company

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING 30 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines in the May 18, 2016, Scheduling Order. Deadline for motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings: November 25, 2016. Non-expert discovery d eadline: March 10, 2017. Expert disclosures: April 14, 2017. Rebuttal expert disclosures: May 12, 2017. Expert discovery deadline: June 16, 2017. Non-dispositive motion filing deadline: June 23, 2017. Non-dispositive motion hearing deadline: Ju ly 26, 2017. Dispositive motion filing deadline: July 25, 2017. Dispositive motion hearing deadline: September 5, 2017. Settlement Conference: January 13, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 before United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng . Final Pretrial Conference: November 1, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Trial: December 12, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. The hearing currently set for September 28, 2016, is VACATED. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/1/2016. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Case No. 1:15-cv-01900-AWI-SKO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

10

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND
CERTAIN DEADLINES IN THE MAY 18,
2016 SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

(Doc. 30)

13

GIBSON WINE COMPANY,

14

Defendant.

15

_____________________________________/

16
17
18
19
20

I.

INTRODUCTION

On December 19, 2015, Plaintiff United States of America (“Plaintiff”) filed this action

21 against Defendant Gibson Wine Company (“Defendant”) for violations of Section 112(r) of the
22 Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1), Section 103 of the Comprehensive
23 Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9603, and
24 Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (“EPCRA”), 42
25 U.S.C. § 11004. On August 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines in the
26 May 18, 2016, Scheduling Order.” (Doc. 30.) The motion indicates that Defendant does not
27 object to the relief requested (see Doc. 30, 2:6-7; Doc. 30-2, Declaration of Cheryl Luke (“Luke
28 Decl.”), ¶ 7 and Ex. 2), and therefore the motion is deemed unopposed. After having reviewed the

1 papers and supporting material, the matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral argument
2 pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the Court hereby VACATES the hearing set for September 28,
3 2016.
4

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s unopposed “Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines in

5 the May 18, 2016, Scheduling Order” is hereby GRANTED.
6
7

II.

DISCUSSION

The parties participated in a scheduling conference with the Court on May 17, 2016. (Doc.

8 26.) At that conference, the Court instructed Plaintiff to review documents produced in a related
9 state court proceeding before seeking additional discovery in this case. The Court issued a
10 Scheduling Order on May 18, 2016 (Doc. 27), which adopted the parties’ proposed dates set forth
11 in their Joint Scheduling Report filed May 12, 2016. (Doc. 24.)
12

Defendant produced the state court documents on May 16, 2016. (Doc. 30-1, 2:3-4; Luke

13 Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff indicates that it has “completed an initial review of the [] documents and has
14 determined that additional discovery, beyond that undertaken in the state court litigation, is needed
15 to more fully understand the circumstances surrounding the allegations in the existing complaint.”
16 (Doc. 30-1, 2:4-8; Luke Decl. ¶ 4.) To that end, Plaintiff seeks an extension of deadlines set forth
17 in the Court’s Scheduling Order.
18

The Scheduling Order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

19 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Here, the Court instructed Plaintiff to review the state court
20 documents before seeking additional discovery. Plaintiff has now done so and states its good faith
21 belief that additional information is necessitated, in part to support a potential amendment of the
22 complaint. (Doc. 30-1, 2:19-22; Luke Decl. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
23 demonstrated good cause to support modifying the Scheduling Order and, in the absence of any
24 actual prejudice to Defendant (as evidenced by its lack of opposition to the motion), Plaintiff’s
25 motion shall be granted.
26 //
27 //
28 //
2

1

III.

ORDER

2

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Plaintiff’s unopposed “Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines in the May 18, 2016,

4 Scheduling Order” (Doc. 30) is GRANTED;
5

2.

The Scheduling Order (Doc. 27) is MODIFIED as follows:

6
EVENT
Deadline for motions or stipulations
requesting leave to amend the
pleadings

September 30, 2016

November 25, 2016

Non-expert discovery deadline

January 13, 2017

March 10, 2017

Expert disclosures

February 17, 2017

April 14, 2017

Rebuttal expert disclosures

March 17, 2017

May 12, 2017

May 5, 2017

June 16, 2017

May 12, 2017

June 23, 2017

15

Expert discovery deadline
Non-dispositive motion filing
deadline
Non-dispositive motion hearing
deadline

June 16, 2017

July 26, 20171

16

Dispositive motion filing deadline

June 23, 2017

July 25, 20172

17

Dispositive motion hearing deadline

August 14, 2017

18

Settlement Conference

November 4, 2016

Final Pretrial Conference

October 13, 2017

Trial

December 5, 2017

September 5, 20173
January 13, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
in Courtroom 6 before United
States Magistrate Judge
Michael J. Seng
November 1, 2017 at 10:00
a.m.
December 12, 2017 at 8:30
a.m.4

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

CURRENT DATE

19
20
21
22

NEW DATE

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
1

Plaintiff requested July 21, 2017, as the hearing date for non-dispositive motions, but since Judge Oberto’s law and

25 motion calendar is set on Wednesdays, the date has been adjusted to the following Wednesday.
2
26
27
28

Plaintiff requested July 28, 2017, as the filing deadline for dispositive motions. To allow the Court adequate time to
rule on dispositive motions in advance of the pretrial conference, the date has been advanced three days to
accommodate the adjusted hearing date (see below).
3
Plaintiff requested September 11, 2017, as the hearing date for dispositive motions. To allow the Court adequate
time to rule on dispositive motions in advance of the pretrial conference, the date has been advanced six days.
4
To permit the parties sufficient time to prepare their pretrial submissions and to prepare for trial, the Pretrial
Conference and Trial dates have been continued.

3

1
Dated:
2

September 1, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

.