Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473-10/pdf.json

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

---

1 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

BRIGHT AND BROWN 

MAUREEN J. BRIGHT (State Bar No. 81589) 

KRISTIN G. TAYLOR (State Bar No. 187076) 

550 North Brand Boulevard., Suite 2100 

Glendale, CA 91203 

Telephone: (818) 243-2121 

Facsimile: (818) 243-3225 

Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Claimants 

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 

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. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD DAD 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY 

DATES ESTABLISHED IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS 

ORDER; ORDER

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

AND CROSS-CLAIMS. 

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”). 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 1 of 11
2 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTAB. IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

 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 $75,000). In the event good faith 

negotiations do not result in an agreement, the Parties are willing to engage in a courtsupervised settlement conference, or mediation before Lester J. Levy or another 

mutually-acceptable 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 counter-claims) and this action will be terminated. 

 

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 (a dissolved corporation); 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 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 2 of 11
3 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTAB. IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

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. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 3 of 11
4 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTAB. IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

 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 Regional Board feedback to the Engineering 

Feasibility Study and develop a closure plan. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 4 of 11
5 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTAB. IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

Developments Since Fifth Modified Status Order (May 2010-April 2011)

 14. After experiencing some delay in receiving a response to the Engineering 

Feasibility Study from the Regional Board, Plaintiffs inquired as to the status of the 

Regional Board’s review. The Regional Board informed Plaintiffs that the Engineering 

Feasibility Study is currently in the queue to be reviewed, but that the Regional Board 

thus far has had to utilize its resources on sites that are “higher priority” than the 

DePaoli Site. Plaintiffs requested a meeting with the Regional Board to discuss the 

status of the site. The Regional Board granted that request, and a meeting between the 

Regional Board and Plaintiffs is currently scheduled for April 29, 2011 to discuss 

Regional Board review of the Engineering Feasibility Study and making progress 

toward site closure. 

 15. 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 12-15 months is a reasonable time 

estimate for obtaining Regional Board review and response to the Engineering 

Feasibility Study and approval of a closure plan to achieve site closure, assuming the 

Parties do not need to expend time and resources on litigation during that time period. 

 16. 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 Fifth 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 Fifth 

Modified Status Order as follows: 

Current Date Proposed Date

Discovery Completion November 4, 2011 November 5, 2012

Expert Designation November 18, 2011 November 19, 2012

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 5 of 11
6 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTAB. IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

Supplemental Expert Designation December 9, 2011 December 10, 2012

Expert Discovery Completion February 10, 2012 February 11, 2013

Last Day for Dispositive Motions to 

be Heard 

April 20, 2012 April 22, 2013

Last Day to file Final Pretrial 

Conference Pleadings 

June 22, 2012 June 21, 2013

Final Pretrial Conference June 29, 2012

at 1:30 p.m. 

June 28, 2013 at 

1:30 p.m. 

Trial September 4, 2012 

at 9:00 a.m. 

(estimated 14-21 

days)

September 4, 2013

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 set forth above. 

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

that the deadlines established by the Court in the Fifth Modified Status Order (entered 

on May 5, 2010) 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 and to this Stipulation, shall continue to 

be binding on the Parties. 

DATED: April 20, 2011 ISOLA LAW GROUP, LLP 

/s/ Reginald Schubert (as authorized on April 19, 2011) 

David R. Isola 

Reginald Schubert 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2116 and 

WILLIAM P. DEPAOLI 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 6 of 11
7 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTAB. IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

DATED: April 20, 2011 ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 

/s/ Peter A. Nyquist (as authorized on April 13, 2011) 

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.) 

DATED: April 20, 2011 BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP LLP 

/s/ Maureen L. King (as authorized on April 13, 2011) 

Donald E. Sobelman 

Maureen L. King 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Hamilton Brothers Corporation, Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation and OXY USA, Inc. 

DATED: April 20, 2011 BRIGHT AND BROWN 

/s/ Kristin Taylor (as authorized on April 20, 2011) 

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 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 7 of 11
8 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTAB. IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

DATED: April 20, 2011 THE COSTA LAW FIRM 

/s/ Daniel P. Costa (as authorized on April 20, 2011) 

Daniel P. Costa 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Hexadyne Energy Corporation and Hexadyne Drilling 

Exploration 

DATED: April 20, 2011 ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 

/s/ Stephanie F. Zook (as authorized on April 14, 2011) 

Stephanie F. Zook 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CMS Nomeco Oil & Gas Co. 

DATED: April 20, 2011 BURNHAM & BROWN 

/s/ John J. Verber (as authorized on April 13, 2011) 

John J. Verber 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Venturini Associates 

DATED: April 20, 2011 NORIEGA & ASSOCIATES, APLC

/s/ Robert J. Noriega (as authorized on April 14, 2011) 

Robert J. Noriega 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Cleveland Drilling Co. 

DATED: April 20, 2011 GLYNN & FINLEY LLP 

/s/ Patricia L. Bonheyo (authorized on April 14, 2011) 

Patricia L. Bonheyo 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ConocoPhillips Company, successor by merger to 

Conoco, Inc., and sued as Conoco, Inc. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 8 of 11
9 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTAB. IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

ORDER

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

HEREBY ORDERED THAT, the dates set forth in this Court’s Fifth Modified Status 

Order entered on May 5, 2010, are further modified as follows: 

 

Discovery Completion November 5, 2012

Expert Designation November 19, 2012

Supplemental Expert Designation December 10, 2012

Expert Discovery Completion February 11, 2013

Last Day for Dispositive Motions to 

be Heard 

April 19, 2013 

Last Day to file Final Pretrial 

Conference Pleadings 

June 21, 2013

Final Pretrial Conference June 28, 2013 

at 1:30 p.m. 

Trial September10, 

2013 at 9:00 a.m. 

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 and to 

this Stipulation, shall continue to be binding on the Parties. 

DATED: April 20, 2011 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 9 of 11
10 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTAB. IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

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, 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 10 of 11
11 

SIXTH STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES ESTAB. IN THE 

COURT’S FIFTH MODIFIED STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

Case No. 2:96-cv-1473 FCD 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

BRIGHT AND 

BROWN

550 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD 

SUITE 2100 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

(818) 243-2121 (213) 489-1414 

FACSIMILE (818) 243-3225 

b) participate in a court-supervised settlement conference, or mediation before 

Lester J. Levy (or another mutually-acceptable mediator). 

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. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 404 Filed 04/21/11 Page 11 of 11