Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473-7/pdf.json

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

---

1 

ORDER RE THIRD STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S STATUS ORDER 

IMANDB/1299508v1 

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) 

ELIZABETH A. FIERMAN (State Bar No. 231474) 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 

E-mail: elizabeth.fierman@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 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2116 

and WILLIAM P. DEPAOLI, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ARCADY OIL COMPANY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Case No.: CIV-S-96 1473 FCD/KJM 

ORDER RE THIRD STIPULATION 

TO MODIFY DATES 

ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

STATUS ORDER 

[Filed concurrently with Third 

Stipulation to Modify Dates 

Established in the Court’s Status 

Order] 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

AND CROSS-CLAIMS. 

 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 395 Filed 11/25/08 Page 1 of 6
1 

ORDER RE THIRD STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S STATUS ORDER 

IMANDB/1299508v1 

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

framework is set forth in Exhibit “A” to the concurrently filed Third Stipulation to 

Modify Dates Established in the Court’s Status Order (“Stipulation”) and is 

summarized below. 

3. As described in Exhibit “A” to the concurrently filed Stipulation, 

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 

 

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. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 395 Filed 11/25/08 Page 2 of 6
2 

ORDER RE THIRD STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S STATUS ORDER 

IMANDB/1299508v1 

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

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 mutuallyacceptable 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 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. 

/ / / 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 395 Filed 11/25/08 Page 3 of 6
3 

ORDER RE THIRD STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S STATUS ORDER 

IMANDB/1299508v1 

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

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. A true 

and correct copy of the text of the SI Report is attached to the concurrently filed 

Stipulation as Exhibit “B.” 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). 

10. In the event the Regional Board determines that no further action 

at the DePaoli Site is required, Plaintiffs intend to dismiss this action, and Defendants 

will also dismiss all cross-claims and counterclaims. 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, and achieve a no further action determination for 

the Site at the earliest feasible date. 

11. 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 Second 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 Second Modified Status Order as follows: 

 Current Date Proposed Date

Discovery Completion April 3, 2009 December 4, 2009 

Expert Designation April 17, 2009 December 18, 2009 

Supplemental Expert Designation May 8, 2009 January 8, 2010 

Expert Discovery Completion July 8, 2009 March 12, 2010 

Last Day for Dispositive Motions 

to be Heard 

September 14, 2009 May 21, 2010 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 395 Filed 11/25/08 Page 4 of 6
4 

ORDER RE THIRD STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S STATUS ORDER 

IMANDB/1299508v1 

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

Last Day to file Final Pretrial 

Conference Pleadings 

November 13, 2009 July 9, 2010 

Final Pretrial Conference November 20, 2009 

at 1:30 p.m. 

July 23, 2010, at 

1:30 p.m.

Trial January 26, 2010 

at 9:00 a.m. 

(estimated 14-21 

days) 

September 28, 2010

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 date set forth above. 

WHEREFORE, based on the concurrently filed stipulation of the parties, 

and good cause existing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the dates set 

forth in this Court’s Second Modified Status Order entered on April 23, 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 and to the concurrently filed 

Stipulation, shall continue to be binding on the Parties. 

DATED: November 24, 2008

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 395 Filed 11/25/08 Page 5 of 6
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

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 395 Filed 11/25/08 Page 6 of 6