Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00883/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00883-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller Act

---

FOURTH JOINT APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD) 

MODIFYING (PRIOR) SCHEDULING ORDERS 

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 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for 

the use and benefit of ELECTRO TECH 

CORPORATION, 

Use-Plaintiff, 

v. 

I.E.-PACIFIC, INC., MILLER/WATTS 

CONSTRUCTORS, INC., and ST. PAUL 

FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO: 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD) 

FOURTH JOINT APPLICATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING THE 

JULY 24, 2006 SCHEDULING ORDER, 

THE DECEMBER 27, 2006 MODIFIED 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND THE 

FEBRUARY 22, 2007 MODIFIED 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

Assigned for all purpose to: 

Hon. Dale A. Drozd, Courtroom No. 27 

Complaint Filed: April 24, 2006 

Trial Date: July 31, 2007 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 

I.E.-Pacific, Inc., Miller/Watts Constructors, Inc., St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 

Company, and Electro Tech Corporation (the “Parties”), through their respective counsel of 

record, respectfully submit this Fourth Joint Application and [Proposed] Order Modifying the 

July 24, 2006 Scheduling Order, the December 27, 2006 Modified Scheduling Order and the 

February 22, 2007 Modified Scheduling Order. By this application, the Parties jointly agree to 

an extension of the pre-trial conference, the trial date and all outstanding discovery deadlines. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00883-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 5
2 

FOURTH JOINT APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD) 

MODIFYING (PRIOR) SCHEDULING ORDERS 

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 

MARKS, GOLIA & 

FINCH, LLP 

3900 Harney Street 

First Floor 

San Diego, CA 92110 

(619) 293-7000 

The Parties have propounded requests for production of documents, served their 

responses and are in the process of producing documents and resolving discovery disputes. All 

Parties have been working diligently to obtain responsive documents from their respective 

clients but such documents only recently became available. Furthermore, there have been 

recent developments that may impact insurance coverage, and the parties are therefore 

exploring insurance coverage for certain claims. Additional time is needed to allow the 

relevant carriers to respond. 

The deadline for fact discovery, expert reports, and expert fact discovery were 

established based on the assumption that the documents would be produced with ample time 

for the Parties to review the documents and prepare for depositions. Document production is 

underway, but not yet completed. The meet and confer process has begun, but certain issues 

remain unresolved. With the fact discovery deadline approaching on March 30, the Parties 

agree that additional time will benefit the overall effectiveness of the litigation and improve the 

likelihood of reaching a settlement. However, if the discovery deadlines are not extended, the 

Parties will not be as prepared for the pre-trial conference by June 4, 2007. Similarly, with an 

extended discovery calendar, the Parties will not be as prepared for trial, which is currently set 

for July 31, 2007. 

For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause, the Parties jointly apply to modify The 

July 24, 2006 Scheduling Order, the December 27, 2006 Scheduling Order and the February 

22, 2007 Modified Scheduling Order The Parties request a 60-day extension of all applicable 

deadlines as follows: 

1. The Parties shall disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(2) by no later than May 18, 2007. 

2. With regard to expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall 

be disclosed and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 

26(a)(2) on or before June 15, 2007. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00883-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 5
3 

FOURTH JOINT APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD) 

MODIFYING (PRIOR) SCHEDULING ORDERS 

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 

MARKS, GOLIA & 

FINCH, LLP 

3900 Harney Street 

First Floor 

San Diego, CA 92110 

(619) 293-7000 

3. All fact discovery (except for interrogatories and requests for admission which 

were to be complete by January 15, 2007), including request for production of documents, 

subpoenas for the production of documents, and depositions of fact witnesses is left open, save 

and except that it shall be conducted as to be completed by May 30, 2007. 

4. All expert discovery including expert depositions, shall be conducted as to be 

completed by June 29, 2007. The word “completed” means that all discovery shall have been 

conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relevant to discovery shall 

have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, 

the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the Magistrate 

Judge’s calendar, in accordance with the local rules of the United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California, and so that such motions may be heard (and any resulting orders obeyed) 

not later than May 30, 2007 for fact discovery. 

5. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining 

orders or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before June 15, 2007, for hearing 

no later than July 20, 2007. All motions shall be noticed for the next available hearing date. 

Counsel are cautioned to refer to the local rules regarding the requirements for noticing and 

opposing such motions on the court’s regularly scheduled law and motion calendar. 

6. The final pre-trial conference is set for August 3, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom No. 5. The conference shall be attended by at least one of the attorneys who will 

conduct the trial for each of the Parties and by any unrepresented party. 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00883-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 5
4 

FOURTH JOINT APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD) 

MODIFYING (PRIOR) SCHEDULING ORDERS 

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 

MARKS, GOLIA & 

FINCH, LLP 

3900 Harney Street 

First Floor 

San Diego, CA 92110 

(619) 293-7000 

Counsel for all Parties are to be fully prepared for trial at the time of the Pretrial 

Conference, with no matters remaining to be accomplished except production of witnesses for 

oral testimony. Counsel shall file separate pretrial statements, and are referred to Local Rules 

16-281 and 16-282 relating to the contents of and time for filing those statements. In addition 

to those subjects listed in Local Rule 16-281(b), the Parties are to provide the court with: (1) a 

plain, concise statement which identifies every non-discovery motion which has been made to 

the court, and its resolution; (2) a list of remaining claims as against each defendant; and (3) 

and estimated number of trial days. 

In providing the plain, concise statements of undisputed facts and disputed factual 

issues contemplated by Local Rule 16-281(b) (3)-(4), the Parties shall emphasize the claims 

that remain at issue, and any remaining affirmatively pled defenses thereto. If the case is to be 

tried to a jury, the Parties shall also prepare a succinct statement of the case which is 

appropriate for the court to read to the jury. 

7. The jury trial is set for September 28, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 5. 

8. A Settlement Conference will be set at the time of the Pretrial Conference. 

All Parties should be prepared to advise the court whether they will stipulate to the trial 

judge acting as settlement judge and waive disqualification by virtue thereof. 

Counsel are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the 

Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. At least 

seven calendar days before the Settlement Conference counsel for each party shall submit a 

confidential Settlement Conference Statement for review by the settlement judge. If the 

settlement judge is not the trial judge, the Settlement Conference Statement shall not be filed 

and will not otherwise be disclosed to the trial judge. 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00883-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/14/07 Page 4 of 5
5 

FOURTH JOINT APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD) 

MODIFYING (PRIOR) SCHEDULING ORDERS 

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 

MARKS, GOLIA & 

FINCH, LLP 

3900 Harney Street 

First Floor 

San Diego, CA 92110 

(619) 293-7000 

This Joint Application and [Proposed] Order Modifying The July 24, 2006 Scheduling 

Order, the December 27, 2006 Scheduling Order and the February 22, 2007 Modified 

Scheduling Order reflects a full and complete agreement between the Parties. 

SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: ________________, 2007 MARKS, GOLIA & FINCH, LLP 

By:__________________________________ 

 JASON R. THORNTON 

 ANDREA L. PETRAY 

 JON F. GAUTHIER 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

I.E.-Pacific, Inc., and Defendants Miller/Watts 

Constructors, Inc., and St. Paul Fire and Marine 

Insurance Company 

DATED: ________________, 2007 THELEN REID BROWN 

RAYSMAN & STEINER LLP 

By:__________________________________ 

 JOHN W. RALLS 

 JEFFREY A. WILCOX 

Attorneys for Use-Plaintiff Electro Tech 

Corporation 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 12, 2007 

400.015/ALP483.dvg 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00883-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 5