Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00448/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00448-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses

---

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 1 The parties further “waive any claim of disqualification

(continued...)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMOS OIL RECYCLERS, INC. dba )

RAMOS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, ) 2:07-cv-448-GEB-DAD

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. ) 

)

AWIM, INC.; JULIE C. NELSON; and )

GERRI SHERMAN; and DOES 1 through )

100, inclusive, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

)

And Related Actions. )

___________________________________)

On January 10, 2008, the parties filed a “Stipulation and

[Proposed] Order Requesting Early Settlement Conference and Staying

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order Dates,” in which the parties

stipulate, subject to the approval of this Court, to “attend an early

settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Drozd on January 31,

2008.”1

 Since the undersigned judge’s deputy clerk has received

Case 2:07-cv-00448-GEB-DAD Document 37 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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

1

(...continued)

[based on Judge Drozd’s role as settlement judge] for [Judge] Drozd to

act as Magistrate Judge in the action thereafter.”

2

assurance that Magistrate Judge Drozd is willing to conduct an early

settlement conference in this action, a settlement conference is

scheduled before Magistrate Judge Drozd on January 31, 2008,

commencing at 10:00 a.m. Each party is directed to have a principal

with authority to settle the case on any terms present at the

settlement conference. 

In addition, each party is directed to submit a settlement

conference statement directly to the chambers of Judge Drozd, the

settlement judge, five (5) court days prior to the settlement

conference. Such statements shall not be filed with the clerk nor

served on opposing counsel. However, each party shall notify the

other party or parties that the statement has been submitted to the

judge’s chambers.

 The parties also “request . . . a modification of the

scheduling order.” Since an early settlement conference has been

scheduled, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order will be modified but not

precisely as the parties propose because their proposal does not

fashion workable procedures designed to create a “binding scheduling

order.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th

Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order is modified as

follows: 

(1) All non-expert discovery shall be completed by May 23,

2008;

(2) Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report

Case 2:07-cv-00448-GEB-DAD Document 37 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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 Since the above schedule reduces the amount of time between

the trial commencement date and the final pretrial conference, it is

unlikely that a settlement conference supervised by a federal judge will

be scheduled after the final pretrial conference, which a wider gap is

designed to accommodate. 

3

requirements on or before July 23, 2008, and with the rebuttal expert

disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before August 22, 2008;

(2) All expert discovery shall be completed by December 23,

2008; 

(3) The last hearing date for motions shall be February 23,

2009, at 9:00 a.m.;

(4) The final pretrial conference is set for April 27,

2009, at 1:30 p.m.; and

(5) Trial is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on June 9,

2009.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2008

Case 2:07-cv-00448-GEB-DAD Document 37 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 3