Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Filing 170

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 169 TO STAY EXPERT DISCOVERY. Stipulation, filed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/19/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2011)

*E-Filed 7/20/11*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

ROCKY N. UNRUH, CA Bar #84049
[e-mail]
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE MARKET
SPEAR STREET TOWER, THIRTY-SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
TELEPHONE:
415.901.8700
FACSIMILE:
415.901.8701
RUSSELL B. SELMAN IL Bar # 6195396, pro hoc vice
[e-mail]
BRADLEY S. ROCHLEN IL Bar # 6244780, pro hoc vice
[e-mail]
J. MICHAEL SHOWALTER IL Bar #6301455, pro hoc vice
[e-mail]
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
233 S. WACKER DR., SUITE 6600
CHICAGO, IL 60606
TELEPHONE:
312.258.5500
FACSIMILE:
312.258.5600

Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19

v.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant.

20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:10-CV-00121-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO STAY EXPERT
DISCOVERY

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2011, Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(“PG&E”) filed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint for Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim, Motion for a More Definite
Statement and Proposed Order (Docket No. 110) (“Motion to Dismiss”). The hearing on the
Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for April 7, 2011.
WHEREAS, the Motion to Dismiss was fully briefed by the parties. On April 5, 2011,

STIPULATION TO STAY EXPERT DISCOVERY

1

the Court ordered the Motion to Dismiss submitted without oral argument, taking the matter

2

under submission on the papers. The Motion to Dismiss is currently pending.

3

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2011, the Court set a discovery schedule calling for the parties

4

to engage in fact discovery related to four service centers which are subject to the lawsuit.

5

Pursuant to the Court Order, fact discovery ended on June 28, 2011. The parties are continuing

6

to finalize outstanding issues related to fact discovery and expect to be complete by the end of

7

July. No new fact discovery will occur related to these four service centers.

8

WHEREAS, according the Court Order, the parties are scheduled to begin expert

9

discovery related to the four service centers. Plaintiffs are required to disclose expert testimony

10

and reports on August 26, 2011. Defendants are required to disclose expert testimony and

11

reports on September 30, 2011, and all expert discovery is scheduled to be completed by

12

November 30, 2011.

13

WHEREAS, because Defendants have sought the dismissal of various counts of the

14

Complaint, the parties are not currently clear on which counts will or will not require expert

15

testimony. The parties believe judicial economy will best be served by finalizing the initial

16

pleadings before attempting to complete expert discovery so that the parties do not spend time

17

and resources pursing expert discovery of claims that are no longer in the Complaint.

18

WHEREAS, the parties agree that rescheduling the deadlines to complete expert

19

discovery at this time will allow the Court to rule on the Motion to Dismiss and then allow the

20

parties to proceed in a more orderly fashion with expert discovery.

21

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby stipulate, by and through counsel, that:

22

1.

23
24

The current dates for expert discovery in the Court’s March 10, 2011 Order shall

be vacated.
2.

After the Court issues a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, the parties request the

25

Court hold a telephonic Case Management Conference (“CMC”) within 14 days. Before that

26

time, the parties will meet and confer and attempt to create a new proposed schedule for expert

27

discovery. At the hearing the parties can discuss their proposals with the Court and establish a

28

new schedule for expert discovery.
-2STIPULATION TO STAY EXPERT DISCOVERY

1
2
3
4

Dated: July 18, 2011

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
ROCKY N. UNRUH
RUSSELL B. SELMAN
BRADLEY S. ROCHLEN
J.MICHAEL SHOWALTER

5
6
7

By: /s/ Bradley S. Rochlen
BRADLEY S. ROCHLEN
Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Gas and
Electric Company

8
9
10
11
12
13

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES
CHRISTOPHER SPROUL
JODENE ISAACS
BRIAN ORION

By: /s/ Christopher Sproul
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ecological Rights
Foundation

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION TO STAY EXPERT DISCOVERY

1

PROPOSED ORDER

2

On July 18, 2011, Plaintiff Ecological Rights Foundation and Defendant Pacific Gas and

3

Electric Company filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order to Stay Expert Discovery (the

4

“Stipulation”). Having considered the Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby

5

GRANTS the Stipulation and orders as follows:

6

1.

7

vacated.

8

2.

9

hold a telephonic Case Management Conference (“CMC”) within 14 days. Before that time, the

10

parties will meet and confer and attempt to create a new proposed schedule for expert discovery.

11

At the hearing the parties can discuss their proposals with the Court and establish a new schedule

12

for expert discovery.

13

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

The current dates for expert discovery in the Court’s March 10, 2011 Order shall be

After the Court issues a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, the parties request the Court

14
15

7/19
Dated: ____________, 2011

________________________________
Richard Seeborg
United States District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

STIPULATION TO STAY EXPERT DISCOVERY