City of Lincoln v. United States of America et al
Filing
44
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE PRETRIALSCHEDULING ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/20/17, ORDERING that the Discovery Cutoff is 2/9/2018, Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures due 3/14/2018, Defendants' Expert Disclosures due 5/ 14/2018, Supplemental Expert Disclosures due 6/11/2018, Completion of Expert Discovery due 7/13/2018 and the Hearing on Dispositive Motions is 8/24/2018. The Final Pretrial Conference, Trial Briefs' deadline and Trial are VACATED to be reset as necessary. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
) Case No.: 2:16-cv-01164-KJM-AC
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
) THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE PRETRIAL
) SCHEDULING ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED )
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
)
FORCE; UNITED STATES GENERAL
)
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; and DOES 1 )
through 100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
CITY OF LINCOLN,
20
The parties jointly requested (ECF No. 39) to amend dates in the pretrial scheduling order
21
(ECF No. 18). The City also agreed not to oppose any motion by the United States to file an
22
Amended Answer to include a counterclaim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
23
Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f), and based upon this agreement,
24
the parties filed a stipulation to allow for the United States to file an Amended Answer to include
25
such a counterclaim under CERCLA. (ECF No. 39).
26
The parties have now filed a stipulation requesting clarification of the Second Amendment to
27
the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 42), to determine whether defendants are authorized to file an
28
Amended Answer to include a counterclaim under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f). The parties also
1
______________________________________________________________________________
Case No. 2:16-cv-01164-KJM-AC
1
filed the stipulation to alert the court to two apparent typos in the Second Amendment to the
2
Scheduling Order, and to request clarification from the court as to these two typos.
3
Good cause appearing, the court GRANTS the United States’ request to file an Amended
4
Answer to include a counterclaim under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f). Section II of the scheduling
5
order is hereby amended as follows:
6
Section II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS
7
The United States may file an Amended Answer to include a counterclaim under CERCLA
8
Section 113, 42 U.S.C. § 9613.
9
Further, good cause appearing, the court GRANTS the parties’ request to amend dates in the
10
pretrial scheduling order, as follows, but vacates the final three dates to be reset as needed after ruling
11
on any dispositive motions or passage of the dispositive motion cutoff without the filing of such
12
motions:
13
14
16
17
Existing Date
New Date
Discovery Cutoff
October 6, 2017
February 9, 2018
Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosures
November 14, 2017
March 14, 2018
Defendants’ Expert Disclosures
January 12, 2018
May 14, 2018
Supplemental Expert Disclosures February 9, 2018
15
Description
June 11, 2018
Completion of Expert Discovery March 14, 2018
July 13, 2018
Hearing on Dispositive Motions April 30, 2018
August 24, 2018
Final Pretrial Conference
Vacated to be reset as
18
19
20
21
22
August 24, 2018
necessary
23
24
Trial Briefs Due
October 8, 2018
necessary
25
26
Vacated to be reset as
Trial
27
October 22, 2018
Vacated to be reset as
necessary
28
2
______________________________________________________________________________
Case No. 2:16-cv-01164-KJM-AC
1
2
3
This amendment does not alter any other portions of the initial scheduling order (ECF No. 18).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 20, 2017.
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
______________________________________________________________________________
Case No. 2:16-cv-01164-KJM-AC
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?