Trujillo et al v. Ametek, Inc. et al

Filing 75

ORDER: (1) Vacating Further Telephonic Case Management Conference; and (2) Setting Telephonic Status Conference. The telephonic Case Management Conference currently scheduled for August 19, 2016, is vacated. The Court will hold a telephonic status conference on October 12, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. to receive a status update regarding Plaintiff's prima facie showing before Judge Curiel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 8/15/16.(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DANIELLE TRUJILLO, as Guardian
Ad Litem for KADEN PORTER, a
minor, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated; LACEY MORALES,
as Guardian Ad Litem for ISABEL
MORALES, a minor, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated;
BEVERLY HOY, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMETEK, INC., a Delaware
corporation; SENIOR AEROSPACE
KETEMA, a business entity form
unknown; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendant.

Civil
No.

15cv1394 GPC (BGS)

ORDER: (1) VACATING
FURTHER TELEPHONIC CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
and (2) SETTING TELEPHONIC
STATUS CONFERENCE

On June 28, 2016, the Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel issued an Order granting in
part Defendants’ motion for entry of Lone Pine case management order. [ECF No.
71.] In the Order, Judge Curiel ruled as follows:
“Thus, the Court finds it appropriate that before proceeding to class
certification each named Plaintiff be required to make a prima facie
showing as to exposure, increased risk of specific injury, and causation.
That said, the Court will not stay discovery proceedings in their entirety in
the meantime. Discovery is ongoing in the related case Greenfied....The
Court has reviewed the joint discovery plans submitted here and in

1

15cv1394 GPC (BGS)

Greenfield and finds that they are largely co-extensive, with the exception
of Plaintiff’s discovery requests (l)-(o) in the instant case. See ECF No. 58.
Moreover, [the] parties are represented by the same counsel in both cases.
Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff’s discovery requests in the instant case are
co-extensive with those in Greenfield, and to the extent consistent with
Magistrate Judge Skomal’s management of the scope of discovery
proceedings prior to class certification, the Court will permit discovery to
go forward at the present time.”

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

[ECF No. 71 at 7:4-16.]
In light of Judge Curiel’s instruction to permit discovery co-extensive with

8
9
10
11
12
13

that in Greenfield, the Court ordered the parties to meet-and-confer and submit a
revised joint proposed discovery plan that took into account the now required prima
facie showing by Plaintiff and the allowance of co-extensive discovery requests (a)(k)1 of the parties’ earlier filed joint discovery plan at ECF No. 58. The parties filed
a revised joint discovery plan on July 14, 2016. [ECF No. 73.]
The Court has carefully reviewed the proposals set forth in the revised joint

14
15

discovery plan, and issues the following ORDERS:
1. In the interests of promoting proportionality and efficiency, as well as

16
17
1

18

The categories of discovery Judge Curiel found co-extensive were:

27

a. Discovery concerning the liability of Ametek, Inc.’s (“AMETEK”) operation, maintenance and
inspection of the subject site at or near Magnolia Elementary School.
b. Discovery concerning the liability of Senior Aerospace Ketema and/or Senior Operations, LLC.’s
operation (“SENIOR”), maintenance and inspection of the subject site at or near Magnolia Elementary
School.
c. Discovery concerning the negligence of AMETEK at or near the subject site Magnolia Elementary
School.
d. Discovery concerning the negligence of SENIOR at or near the subject site Magnolia Elementary
School.
e. Discovery concerning the liability of AMETEK for public nuisance.
f. Discovery concerning the liability of SENIOR for public nuisance.
g. Discovery concerning the waste dumped near the subject site Magnolia Elementary School.
h. Discovery concerning the liability of AMETEK to clean-up and abate the contamination.
i. Discovery concerning ERM, the DTSC, the California Water Board, and the efforts to monitor and
analyze data.
j. Discovery concerning the punitive conduct of AMETEK.
k. Discovery concerning the punitive conduct of SENIOR.

28

ECF No. 58 at p.4.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

15cv1394 GPC (BGS)

1

avoiding duplicative and burdensome requests, the parties may conduct discovery

2

that is co-extensive (or overlapping) in both the Greenfield and Trujillo cases with

3

respect to categories (a) through (k) in the parties’ April 8, 2016 Trujillo joint

4

discovery plan. Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). If counsel disagree on the issue of what is

5

overlapping or co-extensive with respect to a particular discovery request, they are

6

instructed to follow the procedures set forth in Judge Skomal’s chambers rules

7

governing discovery disputes.
2. The further telephonic Case Management Conference currently

8
9

scheduled for August 19, 2016, is VACATED.
3. The Court will hold a telephonic status conference on October 12, 2016

10
11

at 10:30 a.m. to receive a status update regarding Plaintiff’s prima facie showing

12

before Judge Curiel. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to arrange and initiate a joint call

13

to the Court at [phone] on the day and at the time indicated above. In

14

preparation for the status conference, the Court will also require the parties to file a

15

joint status conference statement suggesting a proposed deadline/briefing schedule

16

for Plaintiff’s anticipated Motion for Class Certification no later than October 3,

17

2016.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 15, 2016

20
21
22

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

23
24
25
26
27
28

3

15cv1394 GPC (BGS)