Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473-11/pdf.json

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

---

1 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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

ANDREW M. GILFORD (State Bar No. 144994) 

PETER A. NYQUIST (State Bar No. 180953) 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

333 South Hope Street, Sixteenth Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Telephone: (213) 576-1000 

Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 

E-mail: andy.gilford@alston.com

E-mail: pete.nyquist@alston.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

HESS CORPORATION (formerly Amerada Hess 

Corporation and erroneously sued as Amereda 

Hess), ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY 

(formerly Arco Oil and Gas Company), and 

BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY 

(formerly Amoco Production Company and 

erroneously sued as Amoco Petroleum Additives Co.) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2116, and 

WILLIAM P. DePAOLI, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ARCADY OIL COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 96 CV 1473 FCD/KJM 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY 

DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

SIXTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; 

ORDER 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND 

CROSS-CLAIMS. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 1 of 12
2 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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

Background

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

located at the San Joaquin Delta, adjacent to the Whiskey Slough on Roberts Island in San Joaquin 

County, California (the “DePaoli Site”). 

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 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 $ 78,706.50 as of May 29, 2012). 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 mediation before Lester J. Levy or another mutually-acceptable mediator. Once site 

 

1 The following Defendants have engaged in good faith discussion 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. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 2 of 12
3 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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

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 counter-claims) and this action will be terminated. 

Prior Modifications to Status/Scheduling Order and Related 

Procedural History

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 investigation 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 Parties sufficient time to implement the 

revised workplan and complete the site investigation. 

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

at the DePaoli Site, pursuant to the approved workplan. Following completion of this work and 

discussion with Defendants regarding preliminary results of the investigation, Plaintiffs submitted a 

Site Investigation Report to the Regional Board on October 17, 2008. In the Report, Plaintiffs 

proposed that an Engineering Feasibility Study 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). 

8. 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 complete the further site investigation and explore closure strategies for the 

DePaoli Site with the Regional Board. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 3 of 12
4 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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

9. In early 2009, the Parties’ technical representatives met with the Regional Board to 

discuss the results of the site investigation and determine what further work would be necessary in 

order to obtain closure at the DePaoli Site. On April 29, 2009 the Regional Board issued a letter 

requesting that Plaintiffs submit a detailed closure plan by August 1, 2009. On May 29, 2009 

Plaintiffs again proposed conducting an Engineering Feasibility Study in order to provide a basis for 

developing a site closure plan. 

10. On June 16, 2009, this Court entered a fourth Order (“Fourth Modified Status Order”) 

modifying dates in the November 24, 2008 Third Modified Status Order to allow the Parties 

sufficient time to prepare an Engineering Feasibility Study and closure plan. 

11. At the Regional Board’s request, Plaintiffs’ consultant submitted an Additional 

Groundwater Investigation Work Plan on June 24, 2009 and installed two new monitoring wells at 

the DePaoli Site to improve delineation of groundwater impacts. Groundwater monitoring at all 

monitoring wells has continued on a quarterly basis since June 2008. To accommodate the 

additional investigation, Plaintiffs requested that the Regional Board extend the August 29, 2009 

deadline for submission of the Engineering Feasibility Study, and the Regional Board did not object. 

12. On May 3, 2010, Plaintiffs submitted the Engineering Feasibility Study to the 

Regional Board. This Study evaluates three primary remedial options to achieve site closure and 

contains recommendations regarding the preferred remedial option. The Parties anticipate that a 

final remedial option will be negotiated and closure plan developed following the Regional Board’s 

review of the Study. 

13. On May 5, 2010, this Court entered a fifth Order (“Fifth Modified Status Order”) 

modifying dates in the June 16, 2009 Fourth Modified Status Order to allow the Parties sufficient 

time to obtain a Regional Board feedback to the Engineering Feasibility Study and develop a closure 

plan. 

14. The Regional Board thereafter advised there would some be some delay in its review 

of the Engineering Feasibility Study due to its utilization of resources on sites deemed “higher 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 4 of 12
5 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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

priority” than the DePaoli Site. Pending Regional Board review of the Engineering Feasibility 

Study, groundwater monitoring at all monitoring wells continued.

15. On April 21, 2011, this Court entered a sixth Order (“Sixth Modified Status Order”) 

modifying dates in the May 5, 2010 Fifth Modified Status Order to allow the Parties sufficient time 

to obtain and respond to Regional Board comments regarding the Engineering Feasibility Study and 

thereafter develop a closure plan. 

16. Subsequently, upon reassignment to this Court, on September 6, 2011, this Court 

entered an Amended Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order modifying dates in the Sixth Modified 

Status Order. 

17. Since then, there have been a number of developments, with substantial progress 

being made towards regulatory approval and implementation of remedial action at the DePaoli Site. 

On October 6, 2011, the Regional Board responded with its comments on the Engineering Feasibility 

Study and determined that “clean closure” of the site is the preferred remedial option. On or about 

December 15, 2011, Plaintiffs submitted a draft “Landfill Remedial Action Plan” (“RAP”) and 

“Background Soil Study Workplan” (“Soil Study Workplan”) to the Regional Board for review and 

approval. The final version of the Soil Study Workplan was approved by the Regional Board on 

February 28, 2012, and the results of that study will be submitted by Plaintiffs to the Regional Board 

shortly. 

18. On February 10, 2012, Plaintiffs’ counsel transmitted a request to Defendants for 

funding of a portion of a levee stability investigation on a portion of the DePaoli Site, which 

Plaintiffs and the Regional Board advise is necessary prior to final approval of the RAP. 

Subsequently, Plaintiffs and Defendants have engaged in good faith discussions regarding the scope 

and funding of the levee stability investigation. The estimated cost is in an amount not to exceed 

$68,565, and Plaintiffs advise they have secured a commitment from their insurers to fund half of 

this amount, with Defendants to fund the other half from the aforementioned trust account. The 

Parties anticipate this work will commence shortly and are optimistic that, upon completion, final 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 5 of 12
6 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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

approval of the RAP will be granted in a timely manner by the Regional Board, with implementation 

of remedial work to likewise follow in a timely manner. 

19. The Parties desire to continue good faith efforts to work cooperatively to promote 

timely review and approval of a closure plan by the Regional Board at the earliest feasible date. The 

Parties believe that 12 months is a reasonable time estimate to complete implementation of the RAP 

and to achieve site closure, assuming the Parties do not need to expend time and resources on 

litigation during that time period. 

20. To allow the Parties reasonable time to work with the Regional Board to achieve site 

closure, as well as to avoid undue litigation expense that would otherwise be required to comply with 

the deadlines established in the Amended Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) 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 Amended Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order as follows: 

Current Date Proposed Date

Expert Designation November 19, 2012 November 19, 2013 

Supplemental Expert Designation December 10, 2012 December 10, 2013 

Discovery Completion February 11, 2013 February 10, 2014 

Last Day for Dispositive Motions to be 

Heard 

April 17, 2013 April 23, 2014 at 9:30 

a.m. 

Last Day to file Joint Pretrial Statement June 21, 2013 June 20, 2014 

Final Pretrial Conference June 28, 2013 

at 10:00 a.m. 

June 27, 2014 at 10:00 

a.m. 

Trial September 9, 2013 at 

9:00 a.m. (estimated 

14-21 days)

September 8, 2014 at 

9:00 a.m. (estimated 14-

21 days)

All other pre-trial deadlines shall comply with applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local 

Rules, based on the modified trial schedule set forth above. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 6 of 12
7 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties hereto that the 

deadlines established by the Court in the Amended Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order (Docket, Doc. 

408) 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, the Fourth Modified Status Order, the Fifth Modified Status Order, the Sixth 

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

DATED: June 27, 2012 ISOLA LAW GROUP, LLP 

/s/ David R. Isola (as authorized on June 26, 2012) 

David R. Isola 

Paul Hagen 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2116 and 

WILLIAM P. DEPAOLI 

DATED: June 27, 2012 ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 

/s/ Peter A. Nyquist (as authorized on June 26, 2012) 

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.) 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 7 of 12
8 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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 27, 2012 BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP LLP 

/s/ Donald E. Sobelman (as authorized on June 26, 2012) 

Donald E. Sobelman 

Nicole M. Martin 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Hamilton Brothers Corporation, Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation and OXY USA, Inc. 

DATED: June 27, 2012 BRIGHT AND BROWN 

/s/ Kristin Taylor (as authorized on June 26, 2012) 

Kristin Taylor 

Attorneys for Defendants 

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 27, 2012 THE COSTA LAW FIRM 

/s/ Daniel P. Costa (as authorized on June 26, 2012) 

Daniel P. Costa 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Hexadyne Energy Corporation and Hexadyne Drilling 

Exploration 

DATED: June 27, 2012 ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 

/s/ Norman C. Hile (as authorized on June 26, 2012) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CMS Nomeco Oil & Gas Co. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 8 of 12
9 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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 27, 2012 BURNHAM & BROWN 

/s/ John J. Verber (as authorized on June 26, 2012) 

John J. Verber 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Venturini Associates 

DATED: June 27, 2012 NORIEGA & ASSOCIATES, APLC

/s/ Robert J. Noriega (as authorized on June 26, 2012) 

Robert J. Noriega 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Cleveland Drilling Co. 

DATED: June 27, 2012 GLYNN & FINLEY LLP 

/s/ Andrew T. Mortl (as authorized on June 26, 2012) 

Andrew T. Mortl 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ConocoPhillips Company, successor by merger to Conoco, 

Inc., and sued as Conoco, Inc. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 9 of 12
10 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause existing therefore, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED, that the dates set forth in this Court’s Amended Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order 

entered on September 6, 2011, 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, the Fourth Modified 

Status Order, the Fifth Modified Status Order, the Sixth Modified Status Order and to this Stipulation, 

shall continue to be binding on the Parties. 

Dated: June 27, 2012 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_________________ 

 JOHN A. MENDEZ 

 United States District Court Judge

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 10 of 12
11 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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 eight-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 mediation before Lester J. Levy 

(or another mutually-acceptable mediator). 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 11 of 12
12 

SEVENTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

AMENDED STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv- 1473 JAM DAD 

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) 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 

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

5) If at any time it becomes clear that the Parties that regulatory closure of the DePaoli site cannot 

be achieved within the time provided by the eight-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. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 408 Filed 06/28/12 Page 12 of 12