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)

Download PDF
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?