Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01520-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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 851306.2 9888.5 

-1-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

ANN M. MURRAY, State Bar No. 118284 

WILLIAM T. CHISUM, State Bar No. 142580 

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 

A Professional Corporation 

400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814-4416 

Telephone: (916) 321-4500 

Facsimile: (916) 321-4555 

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant 

LAKE TAHOE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

EL DORADO COUNTY, 

CALIFORNIA, ET AL., 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2:01-cv-1520-MCE-GGH 

STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF 

COURT’S PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

AND RELATED ACTIONS. 

On October 12, 2006, the Court entered an Order for Appointment of Special 

Master and Relief From the Court’s Scheduling Order, and the Court also entered a Third 

Amended Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order on that same date. Through these Orders, the Court 

appointed Ms. Catherine Yanni as Special Master for Mediation and established various amended 

pre-trial and trial related scheduling deadlines. 

The parties, except for Third-Party Defendant Barton Healthcare System, have met 

with Ms. Yanni on three occasions, exchanged detailed briefs and other correspondence and are 

presently in the process of reviewing cost allocation models and proposals. In order to allow the 

parties to fully evaluate the proposed allocation models and proposals, engage in meaningful 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 11
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 851306.2 9888.5 

-2-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

settlement discussions and in general to focus their efforts on the potential resolution of this 

matter rather than on trial preparation activities, the parties submit that a 120 day continuance of 

all pre-trial dates and deadlines, including the trial date, is warranted. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that the Third Amended Pretrial (Status) 

Scheduling Order should be amended to read as follows: 

I. DISCOVERY

All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed by 

August 20, 2007. In this context, “completed” means that all discovery shall have been 

conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative 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 this Court. 

II. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES 

 All counsel are to simultaneously designate in writing, filed with the Court, and 

serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they 

propose to tender at trial not later than October 18, 2007.

1

 The designation shall be accompanied 

by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(a)(2)(B). 

 Within twenty (20) days after the designation of expert witnesses, any party may 

designate a supplemental list of expert witnesses who will express an opinion on a subject 

covered by an expert designated by an adverse party. The right to designate a supplemental 

expert for rebuttal purposes only shall apply to a party who has not previously disclosed an expert 

witness on the date set for expert witness disclosure by this Scheduling Order. 

 Failure of a party to comply with the disclosure schedule as set forth above in all 

 

1

 The discovery of experts will include whether any motions based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and/or Kumo Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 

(1999) are anticipated. 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 11
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 851306.2 9888.5 

-3-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

likelihood will preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the time of trial. An expert 

witness not appearing on the designation will not be permitted to testify unless the party offering 

the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity for the witness could not have been reasonably 

anticipated at the time the list was proffered; (b) that the court and opposing counsel were 

promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was promptly made 

available for deposition. 

 For purposes of this scheduling order, an “expert” is any person who may be used 

at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 

which include both “percipient experts” (persons who, because of their expertise, have rendered 

expert opinions in the normal course of their work duties or observations pertinent to the issues in 

the case) and “retained experts” (persons specifically designated by a party to be a testifying 

expert for the purposes of litigation). 

 Each party shall identify whether a disclosed expert is percipient retained, or both. 

It will be assumed that a party designating a retained expert has acquired the express permission 

of the witness to be so listed. Parties designating percipient experts must state in the designation 

who is responsible for arranging the deposition of such persons. 

 All experts designated are to be fully prepared at the time of designation to render 

an informed opinion, and give their bases for their opinion, so that they will be able to give full 

and complete testimony at any deposition taken by the opposing party. Experts will not be 

permitted to testify at the trial as to any information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed, 

after deposition taken subsequent to designation. 

 Counsel are instructed to complete all discovery of expert witnesses in a timely 

manner in order to comply with the Court’s deadline for filing dispositive motions. 

III. MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE 

 All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining 

orders or other emergency applications, shall be filed no later than January 17, 2008. The parties 

are responsible for ensuring that all motions are filed to allow for proper notice of the hearing 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 11
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 851306.2 9888.5 

-4-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Local Rules. Available hearing dates may be 

obtained by calling Amanda Souvannarath, Deputy Courtroom Clerk, (916) 930-4207. 

 All purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely pretrial motions. Local Rule 

78-230 governs the calendaring and procedures of civil motions with the following additions: 

(a) The opposition and reply must be filed by 4:00 p.m. on the day due; and 

(b) When the last day for filing an opposition brief falls on a legal holiday, the 

opposition brief shall be filed on the last court day immediately preceding the legal holiday. 

 Failure to comply with Local Rule 78-230(c), as modified by this Order, may be 

deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. Further, 

failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion

2

may result in the granting of that motion if 

the movant shifts the burden to the nonmovant to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact 

remains for trial. 

 The Court places a page limit of twenty (20) pages on all initial moving papers, 

twenty (20) pages on oppositions, and ten (10) pages for replies. All requests for page limit 

increases must be made in writing to the Court setting forth any and all reasons for any increase 

in page limit at least fourteen (14) days prior to the filing of the motion. 

 For the Court’s convenience, citations to Supreme Court cases should include 

parallel citations to the Supreme Court Reporter. 

 The parties are reminded that a motion in limine is a pretrial procedural device 

designed to address the admissibility of evidence. The Court will look with disfavor upon 

dispositional motions (except those noted on page 3) presented at the Final Pretrial Conference or 

at trial in the guise of motions in limine.

 The parties are cautioned that failure to raise a dispositive legal issue that could 

have been tendered to the Court by proper pretrial motion prior to the dispositive motion cut-off 

date may constitute waiver of such issue. 

 

2

 The Court urges any party that contemplates bringing a motion for summary judgment or who 

must oppose a motion for summary judgment to review Local Rule 56-260. 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 4 of 11
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 851306.2 9888.5 

-5-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

IV. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

 The Final Pretrial Conference is set for April 10, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. At least one 

of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each of the parties shall attend the Final Pretrial 

Conference. If by reason of illness or other unavoidable circumstance a trial attorney is unable to 

attend, the attorney who attends in place of the trial attorney shall have equal familiarity with the 

case and equal authorization to make commitments on behalf of the client. 

Counsel for all parties are to be fully prepared for trial at the time of the Final 

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

witnesses for oral testimony. 

 The parties shall file, not later than March 26, 2008 a Joint Final Pretrial 

Conference Statement. The provisions of Local Rules 16-281 shall apply with respect to the 

matters to be included in the Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement. In addition to those 

subjects listed in Local Rule 16-281(b), the parties are to provide the Court with a plain, concise 

statement that identifies every non-discovery motion tendered to the Court and its resolution. 

Failure to comply with Local Rule 16-281, as modified by this order, may be 

grounds for sanctions. 

 At the time of filing the Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement, counsel shall 

also electronically mail to the Court in digital format compatible with Microsoft Word or 

WordPerfect, the Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement in its entirety including the witness 

and exhibit lists. These documents shall be sent to: mceorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

 The parties should identify first the core undisputed facts relevant to all claims. 

The parties should then, in a concise manner, identify those undisputed core facts that are relevant 

to each claim. The disputed facts should be identified in the same manner. Where the parties are 

unable to agree as to what disputed facts are properly before the Court for trial, they should 

nevertheless list all disputed facts asserted by each party. Each disputed fact or undisputed fact 

should be separately numbered or lettered. 

 Each party shall identify and concisely list each disputed evidentiary issue which 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 5 of 11
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 851306.2 9888.5 

-6-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

wi1l be the subject of a motion in limine. 

 Each party shall identify the points of law which concisely describe the legal 

issues of the trial which will be discussed in the parties’ respective trial briefs. Points of law 

should reflect issues derived from the core undisputed and disputed facts. Parties shall not 

include: argument or authorities with any point of law. 

 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Local Rule 16-281 they are required to 

list in the Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement all witnesses and exhibits they propose to 

offer at trial. After the name of each witness, each party shall provide a brief statement of the 

nature of the testimony to be proffered. The parties may file a joint list or each party may file 

separate lists. These list(s) shall not be contained in the body of the Joint Final Pretrial 

Conference Statement itself but shall be attached as separate documents to be used as addenda to 

the Final Pretrial Order. 

Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed numerically. Defendants’ exhibits shall be listed 

alphabetically. The parties shall use the standard exhibit stickers provided by the Court: pink for 

plaintiff and blue for defendant. In the event that the alphabet is exhausted, the exhibits shall be 

marked “AA-ZZ” and “AAA-ZZZ” etc. All multi page exhibits shall be stapled or otherwise 

fastened together and each page within the exhibit shall be numbered. The list of exhibits shall 

not include excerpts of depositions, which may be used to impeach witnesses. In the event that 

Plaintiff and Defendant offer the same exhibit during trial, that exhibit shall be referred to by the 

designation the exhibit is first identified. The Court cautions the parties to pay attention to this 

detail so that all concerned will not be confused by one exhibit being identified with both a 

number and a letter.

 The Final Pretrial Order will contain a stringent standard for the offering at trial of 

witnesses and exhibits not listed in the Final Pretrial Order, and the parties are cautioned that the 

standard will be strictly applied. On the other hand, the listing of exhibits or witnesses that a party 

does not intend to offer will be viewed as an abuse of the Court’s processes. 

Counsel shall produce all trial exhibits to Amanda Souvannarath, the Courtroom 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 6 of 11
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 851306.2 9888.5 

-7-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

Clerk, no later that 3:00 p.m. on May 12, 2008. 

 The parties also are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure it will be their duty at the Final Prctria1 Conference to aid the Court in: (a) the 

formulation and simplification of issues and the elimination of frivolous claims or defenses; (b) 

the settling of facts that should properly be admitted; and (c) the avoidance of unnecessary proof 

and cumulative evidence. Counsel must cooperatively prepare the Joint Final Pretrial Conference 

Statement and participate in good faith at the Final Pretrial Conference with these aims in mind. 

A failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions which may include monetary 

sanctions, orders precluding proof, elimination of claims or defenses, or such other sanctions as 

the Court deems appropriate. 

IV. TRIAL SETTING 

 The trial is set for May 19, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. Trial will be by court. The parties 

estimate a trial length of twenty-five (25) days. 

V. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

 No settlement conference is currently scheduled. A settlement conference may be 

set at the parties’ request. In the event a settlement conference date is requested, the parties shall 

file said request jointly, in writing. 

 Counsel, except for Counsel for the United States, 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 (7) calendar days before the 

Settlement Conference counsel for each party shall submit to the chambers of the settlement 

judge a confidential Settlement Conference Statement. Such statements are neither to be filed 

with the Clerk nor served on opposing counsel. Each party, however, shall serve notice on all 

other parties that the statement has been submitted. If the settlement judge is not the trial judge, 

the Settlement Conference Statement shall not be disclosed to the trial judge. 

After the Fina1 Pretria1 Conference, the Court will not set a settlement conference. 

The parties are free, however, to continue to mediate or attempt to settle the case with the 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 7 of 11
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 851306.2 9888.5 

-8-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

understanding that the trial date is a firm date. 

VI. VOLUNTARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM 

Pursuant to Local Rule 16-271 parties will need to lodge a stipulation and 

proposed order requesting referral to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program. 

VII. MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall not be modified except by leave of court 

upon a showing of good cause. Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation alone does not 

constitute good cause. Except in extraordinary circumstances, unavailability of witnesses or 

counsel does not constitute good cause. 

Date: February 7, 2007 _______________/s/____________________ 

KARL J. FINGERHOOD 

United States Department of Justice 

Environmental Enforcement Section 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

P.O. Box 7611 

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 

Telephone: (202) 514-7519 

Facsimile: (202) 514-2583 

Date: January 23, 2007 _______________/s/____________________ 

THOMAS F. VANDENBURG 

SHIRIN R. KIAEI 

Dongell Lawrence Finney Claypool LLP 

707 Wilshire Blvd., 45th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: (213) 943-6100 

Facsimile: (213) 943-6101 

Date: January 23, 2007 _______________/s/____________________ 

FRANCIS M. GOLDSBERRY III 

ALAN STEINBERG 

Goldsberry, Freeman, Guzman & Ditora LLP 

777 12th Street 

Suite 250 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 448-0448 

Facsimile: (916) 448-8628 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 8 of 11
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 851306.2 9888.5 

-9-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

Date: January 23, 2007 _______________/s/___________________ 

SCOTT W. GORDON 

Law Offices of Scott W. Gordon 

1990 N. California Boulevard 

Suite 940 

Walnut Creek, California 94596 

Telephone: (925) 295-3131 

Facsimile: (925) 295-3132 

Date: January 23, 2007 _______________/s/__________________ 

STEVEN L. HOCH 

ROBIN L. LEWIS 

Hatch & Parent 

21 East Carrillo Street 

Santa Barbara, California 93101 

Telephone: (805) 963-7000 

Facsimile: (805) 965 4333 

Date: January 23, 2007 _______________/s/__________________ 

WILLIAM T. CHISUM 

Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann 

 & Girard 

400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814-4416 

Telephone: (916) 321-4500 

Facsimile: (916) 321-4555 

Date: January 23, 2007 _______________/s/_________________ 

ROBERT P. SORAN 

AMILIA SANDERS 

Downey Brand LLP 

555 Capitol Mall, Tenth Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 444-1000 

Facsimile: (916) 444-2100 

Date: January 23, 2007 _______________/s/___________________ 

JEFFREY K. RAHBECK 

Law Offices of Jeffrey Kjar Rahbeck 

P.O. Box 435 

Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 

Telephone: (775) 588-5602 

Facsimile: (775) 588-8548 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 9 of 11
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 851306.2 9888.5 

-10-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

Date: January 23, 2007 _______________/s/___________________ 

MARC A. ZEPPETELLO 

Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp LLP 

One Market 

Steuart Tower 

Suite 2700 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1475 

Telephone: (415) 228-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 228-5450 

Date: January 29, 2007 _______________/s/___________________ 

JOHN P. PHILLIPS 

ROBERT P. HOFFMAN 

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP 

55 Second Street 

Twenty-Fourth Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 

Telephone: (415) 856-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 

Date: January 23, 2007 _______________/s/___________________ 

WILLIAM PETERSON 

JANINE C. PRUPAS 

Morris, Pickering & Peterson 

6100 Neil Rd., Suite 555 

Reno, Nevada 89511 

Telephone: (775) 829-6000 

Facsimile: (775) 829-6001 

Date: January 23, 2007 _______________/s/__________________ 

 WILLIAM D. WICK 

 Wactor & Wick LLP 

 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 950 

 Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: (510) 465-5750 

Facsimile: (510) 465-5697 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 10 of 11
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 851306.2 9888.5 

-11-

STIP. RE CONTINUANCE OF COURT’S PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON 

Date: January 31, 2007 _______________/s/__________________ 

 THOMAS O. PERRY 

 ALLISON CHERRY LAFFERTY 

 JOSHUA H. TIFFEE 

 Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & 

 Christopherson 

 P.O. Box 692050 

 Stockton, California 95269-2050 

Telephone: (209) 478-2000 

Facsimile: (209) 478-0354 

ORDER

Based upon a review of the record and good cause appearing, 

IT IS SO ORDERED that the Third Amended Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order shall be 

amended as set forth herein. 

Dated: February 9, 2007 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 311 Filed 02/12/07 Page 11 of 11