Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses

---

1 

 FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DATES 

 

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2116, and 

WILLIAM P. DePAOLI,

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ARCADY OIL COMPANY, et al.,

 Defendants. 

 Case No. CIV. S-96-1473 FCD DAD

FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER 

TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED 

IN THE COURT’S STATUS ORDER 

 

 1. This case involves alleged environmental contamination at a 3.5-acre 

parcel of land (the “DePaoli Site”) located in the San Joaquin Delta, adjacent to the 

Whiskey Slough on Roberts Island in San Joaquin County, California. 

2. The Court issued its initial Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order for this 

action on December 11, 2006 (“2006 Status Order”). Thereafter, Plaintiffs and the 

remaining Defendants1

 (collectively, the “Parties”) met and conferred concerning a 

 

1

The following Defendants have engaged in good faith discussions with Plaintiffs and agree to the terms of this Stipulation: Occidental 

Petroleum Corporation; OXY USA, Inc.; Hamilton Brothers Corporation; Atlantic Oil Company, Chevron U.S.A.; EnCana Corporation 

(formerly Pan Canadian Petroleum Company); Marathon Oil Company (for Texas Oil & Gas Corporation); Union Oil Company of California 

dba Unocal; Western Continental Operating Company; Hess Corporation (formerly Amerada Hess Corporation); Atlantic Richfield Company 

(formerly Arco Oil and Gas Company); BP America Production Company (formerly Amoco Production Company and erroneously sued as 

Amoco Petroleum Additives Co.); ConocoPhillips Company; Venturini Associates; Hexadyne Energy Corp.; Hexadyne Drilling Corporation (a 

dissolved California corporation); CMS Nomeco Oil & Gas Co.; and Cleveland Drilling, Inc. The other defendants originally named in this 

action have either been dismissed, had a default judgment entered against them, or are otherwise not actively participating in the ongoing 

litigation. 

John J. Verber, SBN 139917 

BURNHAM BROWN 

A Professional Law Corporation 

P.O. Box 119 

Oakland, California 94604 

--- 

1901 Harrison Street, 11th Floor 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: (510) 444-6800 

Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 

Email: jverber@burnhambrown.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

VENTURINI ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 400 Filed 06/16/09 Page 1 of 10
2 

 FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DATES 

 

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 

potential framework for resolution of this matter without further litigation. That 

framework is set forth in Exhibit “A” to this Stipulation and summarized below. 

3. As described in Exhibit “A”, the Parties previously agreed on a 

proposal to fund and conduct further site assessment and characterization, with the 

goal of achieving closure of the DePaoli Site under oversight of the California 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (“Regional 

Board”). Should the Regional Board determine that remedial or corrective action 

is required at the DePaoli Site, the Parties have agreed to: (a) utilize monies 

contained in an existing trust fund for that purpose; and (b) engage in good faith 

settlement negotiations for the purpose of funding any necessary remedial or 

corrective action, to the extent such costs exceed the amount contained in the trust 

fund (approximately $75,000). In the event good faith negotiations do not result in 

an agreement, the parties are willing to engage in a court-supervised settlement 

conference, or a mediation before Lester J. Levy (or other mutually-acceptable 

mediator). Once site closure has been achieved, via the Regional Board’s issuance 

of a “closure” or “no further action” letter, all Parties will dismiss their claims and 

this action will be terminated. 

4. On November 9, 2007, this Court entered an Order (“First Modified 

Status Order”) modifying dates in the 2006 Status Order to allow, among other 

things, the Parties additional time to develop, submit and implement a workplan 

for additional site assessment. 

5. Plaintiffs submitted a preliminary workplan to the Regional Board on 

or about November 14, 2007. Subsequently, following a series of “meet and 

confer” discussions between the Parties’ technical representatives, a revised 

workplan was submitted to the Regional Board on or about January 31, 2008. On 

March 18, 2008, the Regional Board conditionally approved the revised workplan. 

6. On April 23, 2008, this Court entered a second Order (“Second 

Modified Status Order”) modifying dates in the 2006 Status Order to allow the 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 400 Filed 06/16/09 Page 2 of 10
3 

 FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DATES 

 

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 

Parties sufficient time to implement the revised workplan and complete the further 

site investigation. 

7. Between April 2008 and August 2008, Plaintiffs undertook field 

investigation activities at the DePaoli Site, pursuant to the approved workplan. 

The scope of investigative work included the following: completion of numerous 

borings to characterize on-site soils; installation of six new groundwater 

monitoring wells to determine groundwater flow characteristics and water quality; 

calculation of vertical hydraulic gradients; evaluation of tidal effects on water 

bearing units; completion of a sensitive receptor survey; and submittal of drilling 

mud, native soil, and groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. 

8. Following completion of this work and discussion with Defendants 

regarding preliminary results of the investigation, Plaintiffs submitted a Site 

Investigation Report (“SI Report”) to the Regional Board on October 17, 2008. In 

the SI Report, Plaintiffs have proposed that an Engineering Feasibility Study 

(“EFS”) be conducted to select an appropriate closure plan for the DePaoli Site, 

based on the Regional Board’s review of various remedial alternatives (including a 

“no action” alternative). 

9. On November 24, 2008, this Court entered a third Order (“Third 

Modified Status Order”) modifying dates in the April 23, 2008 Second Modified 

Status Order to allow the Parties sufficient time to implement the revised workplan 

and complete the further site investigation. 

10. On or about April 16, 2009, the Parties met with the Regional Water 

Quality Control Board to discuss the results of the site investigation and determine 

what further work is necessary in order to obtain closure. 

11. On April 29, 2009 the Regional Board issued a letter (Attached hereto 

as “Exhibit B”) requesting the parties submit a detailed closure plan by August 1, 

2009. 

12. The Parties desire to continue good faith efforts to work cooperatively 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 400 Filed 06/16/09 Page 3 of 10
4 

 FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DATES 

 

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 

to promote timely review and approval of a closure plan by the Regional Board at 

the earliest feasible date. 

13. To allow the Parties reasonable time to complete and develop a site 

closure plan under Regional Board oversight, as well as to avoid undue litigation 

expense that would otherwise be required to comply with the deadlines established 

in the Third Modified Status Order, the Parties respectfully seek an order pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) modifying and extending the deadlines 

set forth within the Third Modified Status Order as follows: 

 Current Date Proposed Date

Discovery Completion December 4, 2009 November 5, 2010 

Expert Designation December 18, 2009 November 18, 2010 

Supplemental Expert Designation 

 January 8, 2010 December 10, 2010 

Expert Discovery Completion March 12, 2010 February 11, 2011 

Last Day for Dispositive Motions 

to be Heard 

May 21, 2010 April 8, 2011 

Last Day to file Final Pretrial 

Conference Pleadings 

July 12, 2010 June 17, 2011 

Final Pretrial Conference July 23, 2010 

at 1:30 p.m. 

June 24, 2011 

at 1:30 p.m. 

Jury Trial September 28, 2010 

at 9:00 a.m. 

(est. 14-21 days) 

September 13, 2011

at 9:00 a.m. 

(est.14-21 days) 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 400 Filed 06/16/09 Page 4 of 10
5 

 FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DATES 

 

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 

All other pre-trial deadlines shall comply with applicable Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and Local Rules, based on the modified trial date set forth above. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the 

Parties hereto that the deadlines established by the Court in the Third Modified 

Status Order (entered on November 24, 2008) may be modified as set forth above, 

and that the Stipulated Framework for Resolving Litigation, attached as Exhibit A 

to the First Modified Status Order, the Second Modified Status Order, the Third 

Modified Status Order and to this Stipulation, shall continue to be binding on the 

Parties. 

DATED: June 3, 2009 ISOLA LAW GROUP, LLP 

/s/

David R. Isola 

Reginald Schubert 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2116 and 

WILLIAM P. DEPAOLI 

DATED: June 3, 2009 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

/s/

Peter A. Nyquist 

Attorneys for Defendants 

HESS CORPORATION (formerly Amerada Hess 

Corporation), ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CORPORATION 

(formerly Arco Oil and Gas Company), and BP 

AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY (formerly 

Amoco Production Company and erroneously sued as 

Amoco Petroleum Additives Co.) 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 400 Filed 06/16/09 Page 5 of 10
6 

 FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DATES 

 

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 

DATED: June 10, 2009 BRIGHT AND BROWN 

/s/

Kristin Taylor 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Atlantic Oil Company, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., EnCana 

Corporation (formerly Pan Canadian Petroleum 

Company), Marathon Oil Company (for Texas Oil & Gas 

Corporation), Union Oil Company of California, dba 

Unocal and Western Continental Operating Company 

DATED: June 2, 2009 THE COSTA LAW FIRM 

/s/

Daniel P. Costa 

Erica L. Rosasco 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Hexadyne Energy Corporation and Hexadyne Drilling 

Corporation (a dissolved corporation) 

DATED: June 2, 2009 ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 

/s/

Stephanie F. Zook 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CMS Nomeco Oil & Gas Co. 

DATED: June 11, 2009 BURNHAM BROWN 

/s/

John J. Verber 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Venturini Associates 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 400 Filed 06/16/09 Page 6 of 10
7 

 FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DATES 

 

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 

DATED: June 11, 2009 BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP LLP 

/s/

Donald E. Sobelman 

Maureen L. King 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Hamilton Brothers Corporation, Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation and OXY USA, Inc. 

DATED: June 10, 2009 NORIEGA & ASSOCIATES, APLC 

/s/

Robert J. Noriega 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Cleveland Drilling Co. 

DATED: June 10, 2009 GLYNN & FINLEY LLP 

/s/

Patricia L. Bonheyo 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ConocoPhillips Company, successor by merger to 

Conoco, Inc., and sued as Conoco, Inc. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 400 Filed 06/16/09 Page 7 of 10
8 

 FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DATES 

 

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 

O R D E R

Based on the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause existing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, the dates set forth in this Court’s Third 

Modified Status Order entered on November 24, 2008, are further modified 

consistent with the dates listed above, and that the Stipulated Framework for 

Resolving Litigation, attached as Exhibit A to the First Modified Status Order, the 

Second Modified Status Order, the Third Modified Status Order and to this 

Stipulation, shall continue to be binding on the Parties. 

DATED: June 16, 2009 

 ________________________________ 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 400 Filed 06/16/09 Page 8 of 10
1 

 FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DATES 

 

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 

EXHIBIT A

STIPULATED FRAMEWORK FOR RESOLVING LITIGATION 

 Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, “Parties”) have agreed on and stipulate to the 

following framework for resolving Reclamation District No. 2116, et al. v. Arcady Oil Company, et 

al., E.D. Cal. Case No. CIV S 96-1473, in a manner that is cost-effective, expeditious, and will 

conserve judicial resources. 

1) The Parties agree to an eleven-month continuance of all dates provided in the Court’s Pretrial 

Scheduling Order, subject to Court approval. 

2) Plaintiffs agree to timely perform the remaining DePaoli site investigation work and prepare 

a closure plan for the DePaoli site (such work to be funded by Plaintiffs’ insurers) and to: 

a) provide Defendants with copies of all existing consultant documents and correspondence 

with the Regional Board and other regulators involved with this site; 

b) provide Defendants’ consultant an opportunity to review and comment on future 

documents submitted to the regulators; 

c) provide Defendants’ consultant an opportunity to participate in investigation work, 

including presence during site visits, observation of sampling and, if requested, taking of 

split samples. 

3) Defendants agree to apply the contents of the existing trust fund – approximately $75,000 as 

of October 31, 2007 – to the reasonable remedial costs, if any, necessary to implement a site 

closure plan acceptable to all Parties and approved by the regulators. If the approved site 

closure plan is estimated to cost more than $75,000, the Parties agree that, prior to 

implementation of the site closure plan, they will: 

a) participate in informal, good-faith negotiations, with the goal of reaching an agreement 

to fully fund implementation of the site closure plan, and, if needed, 

b) participate in a court-supervised settlement conference, or a mediation before Lester J. 

Levy (or another mutually-acceptable mediator). 

4) When regulatory closure of the DePaoli site is achieved – via a “closure letter,” “no further 

action” letter, or similar directive – the parties will mutually dismiss all claims against each 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 400 Filed 06/16/09 Page 9 of 10
2 

 FOURTH STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DATES 

 

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 

other with prejudice, and Plaintiffs will be entitled to any proceeds remaining in the trust 

fund. 

5) If at any time it becomes clear to the Parties that regulatory closure of the DePaoli site 

cannot be achieved within the time provided by the eleven-month continuance, the Parties 

will immediately notify the Court of this fact, provide the Court with an estimated timetable 

for reaching site closure, and seek the Court’s guidance as to scheduling of further 

proceedings in this action. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 400 Filed 06/16/09 Page 10 of 10