Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03941/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03941-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 42:9601 CERCLA

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Court notes that defendants state they are amenable to shortening the schedule, provided

plaintiffs otherwise comply with CMO No. 1. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA AVILA, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WILLITS ENVIRONMENTAL

REMEDIATION TRUST, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 99-3941 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER

DIRECTING SAMPLING

Plaintiffs have filed an “emergency” ex parte application for an order directing sampling to be

conducted at the Remco site. Plaintiffs seek an order directing defendants and the Willits Environmental

Remediation Trust to make the Remco site immediately available for testing by Al Levin, M.D. “and

his team” with no advance notice as to the exact location for sample extraction. Defendants oppose the

motion on the ground that plaintiffs must comply with Case Management Order Number One (“CMO

No. 1"), which sets forth the parties’ stipulated terms for plaintiffs to conduct sampling at the Remco

site. 

The Court agrees with defendants, and DENIES plaintiffs’ motion. (Docket No. 696). Plaintiffs

have not demonstrated any reason to deviate from the procedures set forth in CMO No. 1. Plaintiffs’

generalized assertions of “spoliation” in other toxic tort cases are wholly irrelevant. If plaintiffs wish

to proceed with testing, they must do so in compliance with the terms contained in CMO No. 1.1

 For

example, plaintiffs must submit a “work plan which details the work to be performed by Plaintiffs at a

Case 3:99-cv-03941-SI Document 713 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Court further notes that while nothing in CMO No. 1 appears to exclude Dr. Levin from

being present for any sampling, plaintiffs have not submitted any documentation showing that he is a

“licensed contractor or professional” who is trained in conducting sampling. Given defendants’

apparent agreement to Levine-Fricke, plaintiffs would be well-advised to have Levine-Fricke actually

obtain the samples. 

2

Defendant’s site . . . .” E-mails from plaintiffs’ counsel stating that plaintiffs wish to “obtain soil and

water samples” are not equivalent to a “work plan.” While plaintiffs are correct that CMO No. 1 does

not define “work plan,” presumably the environmental firm that the parties appear to agree is acceptable

(Levine-Fricke) can prepare a simple and appropriate “work plan.”2

The Court also notes that a considerable amount of soils testing has already occurred at the

Remco site in connection with the remediation activities which have been ongoing for several years, and

it is unclear from the parties’ papers whether plaintiffs have reviewed the extant testing. After review

of such testing, plaintiffs may conclude that further testing is unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03941-SI Document 713 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 2