USA v. El Dorado County, et al

Filing 440

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/16/14 ORDERING within 30 days of the date of this order the County shall disclose to the Govt a description of the relief the County may seek at evidentiary hearing, including a computation and rele vant documentation, related to the cost overruns on the construction of the Govt's Final 100% Remedial Design; Within 45 days of the County's disclosure to the Govt the Govt shall meet and confer with the County re possible propose d stipulations and other matters based upon the disclosures; Within 20 days of the parties' meeting and conferring the parties may file proposed stipulations with the court that would govern an evidentiary hearing in this matter or which would otherwise aid in resolving this dispute; A Further Status Conference is set for Friday, 9/12/14, at 10:00 a.m, at the US District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned; Any party may appear at the status conference telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at [phone], no later than 48 hours before the Status Conference; a land line telephone nu mber must be provided; The parties' shall file a joint status report on or before 9/9/14, that provides an update as to the status of the parties' dispute and joint or separate proposed discovery schedules, if applicable. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:01-cv-1520 MCE DAD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
and CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE,
CALIFORNIA,
Defendants.
AND RELATED ACTIONS.

18
19

On April 3, 2014, the assigned District Judge referred this matter to the undersigned

20

pursuant to Local Rule 301, and upon the parties’ agreement, for an evidentiary hearing and,

21

thereafter, the issuance of findings and recommendations addressing reimbursement issues

22

surrounding remediation efforts at the site which is the subject of this litigation. (Dkt. No. 436.)

23

On May 16, 2014, the parties appeared before the undersigned for a Status Conference.

24

Attorneys Karl Fingerhood and Andrew Doyle appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, the United

25

States of America, (“Government”), and attorneys Thomas Bruen and Erik Reinertson appeared

26

on behalf of defendant El Dorado County (“County”).

27
28

Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set
forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1

1

1. Within thirty days of the date of this order the County shall disclose to the

2

Government a description of the relief the County may seek at evidentiary hearing, including a

3

computation and relevant documentation, related to the cost overruns on the construction of the

4

Government’s Final 100% Remedial Design.1
2. Within forty-five days of the County’s disclosure to the Government the

5
6

Government shall meet and confer with the County regarding possible proposed stipulations and

7

other matters based upon the disclosures.
3. Within twenty days of the parties’ meeting and conferring the parties may file

8
9
10

proposed stipulations with the court that would govern an evidentiary hearing in this matter or
which would otherwise aid in resolving this dispute.

11

4. A Further Status Conference is set for Friday, September 12, 2014, at 10:00

12

a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No.

13

27, before the undersigned.

14

5. Any party may appear at the status conference telephonically if the party pre-

15

arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned

16

magistrate judge, at [phone], no later than 48 hours before the Status Conference; a land

17

line telephone number must be provided.

18

6. The parties’ shall file a joint status report on or before September 9, 2014, that

19

provides an update as to the status of the parties’ dispute and joint or separate proposed discovery

20

schedules, if applicable.

21

Dated: May 16, 2014

22
23
24

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.civil\U.S. v. El Dorado.1520.oah.051614.docx

25
26
27
28

1

As stated on the record at the hearing, the court recognizes that these disclosures by the County
are preliminary and are in no way binding as to the amount of cost overruns for which the County
may ultimately seek reimbursement from the Government should the matter ultimately proceed to
evidentiary hearing.
2