Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02445/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02445-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Property Damage

---

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, ET 

AL., 

 Defendants.

______________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 

______________________________/

Case No. 2:09-CV-02445-JAM-EFB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO AMEND STATUS PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants Sierra Pacific 

Industries, Eunice Howell, individually and d/b/a Howell’s 

Forest Harvesting Company, Landownder Defendants (as that term 

is defined in the Second Amended Complaint), and W.M. Beaty & 

Associates’ (“Defendants”) Motion to Amend Status (Pre-trial 

Scheduling Order (“Motion”).1 Now, having read and considered all 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

Case 2:09-cv-02445-WBS-AC Document 71 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 2
2

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

papers supporting and opposing2 the Motion, the Court HEREBY 

GRANTS the Motion as follows:

Good cause having been shown, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED

and the Status Pre-Trial Scheduling Order (Doc. #39) is amended 

as follows: 

Event Date

Non-damages Expert Disclosures April 22, 2011

Damages Expert Disclosures July 30, 2011

Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off August 15, 2011

Expert Discovery Cut-Off October 17, 2011

Dispositive Motions Filed December 16, 2011

Dispositive Motions Heard January 20, 2012

In addition, the Final Pre-Trial Conference is continued to 

2:00 p.m. on March 12, 2012. Jury trial in this matter is set 

for April 16, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2010

 

2 Despite Defendants’ request to disregard the Opposition brief 

as untimely, the Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s 

Opposition.

Case 2:09-cv-02445-WBS-AC Document 71 Filed 08/31/10 Page 2 of 2