Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05167/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05167-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Property Damage

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

MICHAEL A. HIRST

KIRK E. SHERRIFF

Asst. United States Attorney

Federal Building, Rm. 3654

1130 "O" Street

Fresno, CA 93721

Telephone: (559) 498-7272

Of Counsel:

JACK GIPSMAN

Acting Regional Attorney

JEFFREY MOULTON

Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

United States Department of Agriculture

33 New Montgomery Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-4511

Telephone: (415) 744-3011

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

COMPANY,

Defendant.

______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CIV-F-01-5167 OWW DLB

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON

UNITED STATES' MOTION TO

COMPEL; DECLARATION OF KIRK E.

SHERRIFF; ORDER THEREON

Date: July 8, 2005

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Court: Five

 (Hon. Dennis L. Beck)

Plaintiff United States of America ("United States") hereby

applies for an Order Shortening Time for the hearing of the

United States' motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and 37 and

Local Rule 37-251, to compel defendant Southern California Edison

Company ("SCE") to produce documents responsive to demands

propounded by the United States.

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 239 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

As detailed below in the declaration of counsel, the United

States has confirmed to SCE's counsel that the United States is

willing to stipulate that SCE's pending motion to compel a

further deposition of Richard Ford be heard on shortened time on

July 8, 2005 (as sought by SCE in a separate application),

provided that SCE stipulate that the United States' motion to

compel may also be heard on shortened time on July 8, 2005. SCE

is unwilling to so stipulate. Accordingly, the United States is

filing the present application for an order permitting its motion

to be heard on shortened time. The United States reserves the

right to object to SCE's pending application for an order

shortening time, if SCE objects to the present application by the

United States.

This application is based on the record in this case and on

the Declaration of Kirk E. Sherriff and annexed exhibits, set

forth below, and on such argument as the Court may hear on this

application.

Dated: June 24, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Kirk E. Sherriff 

KIRK E. SHERRIFF

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 239 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF

APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME

I, Kirk E. Sherriff, hereby declare:

1. I am an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S.

Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California, and the

attorney of record for the United States in this action. I have

personal knowledge of the matters set forth below, and if called

to testify, could and would testify competently thereto.

2. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order dated February 3, 2005

(a true and correct copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit

A), non-dispositive motions in this case must be filed by June

25, 2005 (a Saturday), and such motions must be heard by July 9,

2005 (also a Saturday).

3. I was out of the country from May 31, 2005 through June

15, 2005. Prior to my departure, I informed the attorneys for

defendant Southern California Edison Company ("SCE") on several

occasions, including by faxed letters on May 20, 2005 and May 27,

2005 (true and correct copies of which are annexed hereto as

Exhibits B and C), that I would be out of the country between May

31, 2005 and June 15, 2005.

4. In a pleading dated June 8, 2005, SCE responded to the

United States' Seventh Request for Production of Documents. SCE

objected to several of the United States' document requests as

"unduly burdensome," despite the fact that such requests were

identical to requests previously propounded by SCE upon the

United States and in response to which the United States had

already produced documents. SCE's responses to these document

requests are the subject of the United States' motion to compel.

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 239 Filed 06/27/05 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

5. Due to my absence from the country, I was unable to

review SCE's responses until my return to the office. By letter

faxed to SCE's attorneys on June 21, 2005, I requested that SCE

withdraw its objections and agree to produce the documents

responsive to the requests by June 24, 2005 (a true and correct

copy of my June 21, 2005 fax is annexed hereto as Exhibit D). I

proposed in my June 21, 2005 fax that, if a motion to compel

became necessary, it be heard on July 8, 2005 with the pending

discovery motions filed by SCE.

6. On June 23, 2005, I attempted to contact SCE attorney

Steven Kimball by telephone. I left a message on Mr. Kimball's

voice mail, further confirming that the United States was willing

to stipulate to a hearing on shortened time both on the United

States' motion to compel (if such motion became necessary), and

on SCE's pending motion to compel a further deposition of Richard

Ford. (On June 20, 2005, SCE filed a declaration and application

for an order shortening time on its motion to compel a further

deposition of Richard Ford, seeking to have SCE's motion to

compel heard on July 8, 2005).

7. I telephoned Mr. Kimball on June 24, 2005, and he

informed me that SCE would not produce the documents sought by

the requests that are the subject of the United States' motion to

compel. Mr. Kimball also stated that SCE would not stipulate to

have both SCE's motion to compel and the United States' motion to

compel heard on shortened time on July 8, 2005 (despite the fact

that SCE was seeking to have its motion to compel heard on

shortened time on that date). Accordingly, the United States has

filed its motion to compel, along with the present Application

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 239 Filed 06/27/05 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

for Order Shortening Time for Hearing on such motion.

8. The United States submits that good cause exists for

this Court to schedule this dispute for hearing on July 8, 2005

for the reasons set forth above, and in the interest of judicial

efficiency so that all pending discovery disputes in this case

can be heard on the same date. In addition to SCE's motion to

compel a further deposition of Richard Ford, which SCE is seeking

to have heard on shortened time on July 8, 2005, SCE also has two

other pending discovery motions in this case set for hearing

before this Court on July 8, 2005. Additionally, the Scheduling

Conference Order indicates that non-dispositive motions such as

the United States' motion to compel may be filed by June 25,

2005, and must be heard by July 9, 2005.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United

States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on June 24, 2005.

 /s/ Kirk E. Sherriff 

Kirk E. Sherriff

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 239 Filed 06/27/05 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the United States' Application for Order

Shortening Time for Hearing on United States' Motion to Compel is

GRANTED. The United States' motion to compel shall be heard on

July 8, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5 (DLB).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 239 Filed 06/27/05 Page 6 of 6