Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Filing 178

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/13/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2011)

*E-Filed 10/13/11*

1
2
3
4
5
6

Christopher Sproul (State Bar No. 126398)
Jodene Isaacs (State Bar No. 226895)
Brian Orion (State Bar No. 239460)
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES
5135 Anza Street
San Francisco, California 94121
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

William Verick (State Bar No. 140972)
Klamath Environmental Law Center
Fredric Evenson (State Bar No. 198059)
Law Offices of Fredric Evenson
424 First Street
Eureka, California 95501
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION,

17

Civil No. 3:10-CV-00121-RS

Plaintiff,
18
v.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY.
Defendant.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING CASE
MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

In accord with the Court’s directive at the October 6, 2011 case management conference and

1
2

Civil Minute Order (Oct. 6, 2011) (Docket Doc. No. 176), Ecological Rights Foundation ("ERF")

3

and Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E") stipulate to and jointly propose the following case

4

management schedule for managing the next phases of litigation (which shall be limited to

5

adjudicating liability and remedy for the four PG&E facilities located at: (a) 24300 Clawiter Road,

6

Hayward, California; (b) 4801 Oakport Street, Oakland, California; (c) 2555 Myrtle Avenue,

7

Eureka, California; and (d) 1099 West 14th Street, Eureka, California ("the Facilities"):

8

--October 27, 2011: Cross motions for summary judgment on standing due.

9

--November 10, 2011: Oppositions to cross motions for summary judgment on standing due.
--November 25, 2011: Replies in support of cross motions for summary judgment on

10
11

standing due.

12

--December 8, 2011, 10 A.M.: Hearing on cross motions for summary judgment on standing.

13

--January 19, 2012: Deadline for ERF to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including

14

expert reports) from any experts that it will use to support its motion for summary judgment

15

concerning liability for ERF’s Clean Water Act ("CWA") claims.
--February 16, 2012: Deadline for PG&E to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including

16
17

expert reports and rebuttal expert reports) from any experts that it will use to support its cross

18

motion for summary judgment concerning liability for ERF’s CWA claims.

19
20

--March 8, 2012: Deadline for ERF to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including expert
reports) from any rebuttal experts that it will use to respond to PG&E’s CWA liability experts.

21

--April 26, 2012: Cutoff to complete discovery concerning any expert disclosures of experts

22

or personnel who assisted the parties’ CWA experts or were relied upon by these experts (including

23

but not limited to people who assisted in gathering or analyzing samples or provided information to

24

the experts concerning whether storm water runoff from the Facilities reaches waters of the United

25

States).

26
27
28

--June 14, 2012: Cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF’s CWA
claims due.
--July 26, 2012: Oppositions to cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

Page 1

1

ERF’s CWA claims and evidentiary motions related to cross motions for summary judgment on

2

liability related to ERF’s CWA claims due.

3

August 16, 2012: Replies in support of cross motions for summary judgment on liability

4

related to ERF’s CWA claims and oppositions to evidentiary motions related to cross motions for

5

summary judgment on liability related to ERF’s CWA claims due.

6
7
8
9

September 6, 2012: Replies in support of evidentiary motions related to cross motions for
summary judgment on liability related to ERF’s CWA claims due.
--September 20, 2012, 10 A.M.: hearing on cross motions for summary judgment on
liability related to ERF’s CWA claims.

10

For a subsequent case schedule on ERF's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

11

("RCRA") claim and on remedy, the parties jointly propose a schedule tied to the Court's issuance

12

of a ruling on the parties cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF’s CWA

13

claims (“CWA Claims Ruling”) as follows:

14

--10 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Deadline for ERF to provide Rule 26 expert

15

disclosures (including expert reports) from any experts that it will use to support its motion for

16

summary judgment or trial claims concerning ERF’s RCRA claim and remedy for the RCRA and

17

CWA claims (“Remaining Claims”).

18

--16 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Deadline for PG&E to provide Rule 26 expert

19

disclosures (including expert reports and rebuttal expert reports) from any experts that it will use to

20

support its cross motion for summary judgment or trial claims concerning the Remaining Claims.

21

--20 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Deadline for ERF to provide Rule 26 expert

22

disclosures (including expert reports) from any rebuttal experts that it will use to respond to

23

PG&E’s Remaining Claims experts.

24

--30 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Cutoff to complete discovery concerning any

25

expert disclosures or experts or personnel who assisted the parties’ related to the Remaining Claims

26

or were relied upon by these experts.

27
28

--39 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Cross motions for summary judgment on the
Remaining Claims due.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

Page 2

1

--45 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Oppositions to cross motions for summary

2

judgment on the Remaining Claims and evidentiary motions related to cross motions for summary

3

judgment on the Remaining Claims due.

4

--49 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Replies in support of cross motions for summary

5

judgment on the Remaining Claims and oppositions to evidentiary motions related to cross motions

6

for summary judgment on the Remaining Claims due.

7
8
9
10

--52 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: replies in support of evidentiary motions related
to cross motions for summary judgment on the Remaining Claims due.
--55 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling, 10 A.M.: hearing on cross motions for summary
judgment on the Remaining Claims.

11
12

Dated: October 12, 2011
/s/ Bradley S. Rochlen_____
Bradley S. Rochlen
Schiff Hardin LLP
233 South Wacker Drive
Suite 6600
Chicago, IL 60606
312-258-5524
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
PG&E

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

_________________________
Christopher Sproul
Environmental Advocates
5135 Anza Street
San Francisco, CA 94121
[phone]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS
FOUNDATION

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

Page 3

PROPOSED ORDER

1
2
3

Having considered the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby
GRANTS the Stipulation and orders that the case shall proceed on the above-referenced schedule.

4
5

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

10/13
Dated: ________________, 2011

____________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

Page 4