Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01520-18/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JAMES KOTROUS, individually

and doing business as THE

MATTRESS FACTORY,

NO. CIV. S-02-1520 FCD/JFM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GOSS-JEWETT COMPANY OF

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.,

a California corporation, 

et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

__________________________/

----oo0oo----

On January 12 and 14, 2010, defendant and cross-defendant

Bayer CropScience Inc. (“Bayer”) filed motions for summary

judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication against

plaintiff James Kotrous (“Kotrous”) and defendants and crossclaimants Goss-Jewett Company of Northern California (“GrossJewett”) and Rosalie A. Anselmo and Karen L. Lilienthal, CoTrustees of the “The Edward A. Anselmo and Rosalie A. Anselmo

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 342 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 10
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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

2 See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(e). Moreover, contrary to

Bayer’s argument, the motion to continue was properly filed

pursuant to Local Rule 230(e), which permits “any counter-motion

or other [related] motion” to the original motion to be filed “on

the date prescribed for the filing of the opposition.” Id.

3 Bayer’s opposition was not timely filed. Pursuant to

Local Rule 230(c), its opposition was due on Friday, February 5,

yet Bayer filed it on February 8. The court, however, has

considered Bayer’s arguments in rendering its decision.

2

1992 Revocable Trust” (“Anselmo parties”). (Docket #s 240, 242,

251.) In response, Goss-Jewett filed a motion to continue the

hearing on Bayer’s motion against it in order to conduct

additional discovery (Docket #287).1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The

Anselmo parties joined in Goss-Jewett’s motion to continue

(Docket #298). Kotrous did not join in the motion, but in

conjunction with his opposition to Bayer’s motion for summary

judgment, he filed a motion to strike Bayer’s supporting

declarations and moved for discovery sanctions on similar grounds

raised by Goss-Jewett its motion to continue. (Docket #305.) As

such, the court continued the hearing on all of Bayer’s motions

for summary judgment in order to hear, in the first instance, the

motion to continue. (Docket #313.)2

In response to the motion to continue, Kotrous filed

“objections,” stating his opposition to the motion on the grounds

Goss-Jewett did not diligently move to modify the pretrial

scheduling order to permit time for further discovery and it did

not justify the need for additional discovery under Rule 56(f). 

(Docket #333.) Bayer opposes the motion on similar grounds.3

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 342 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 10
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 All further references to a Rule are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

3

For the reasons set forth below, the court grants GossJewett’s motion to continue the hearings on Bayer’s motions for

summary judgment and permits time for further discovery pertinent

to the motions. Such relief is properly granted pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(f).4

 Moreover, although

discovery in this case has closed, the court finds good cause to

modify the pretrial scheduling order to reopen discovery since

Goss-Jewett has acted diligently in seeking the instant relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 

BACKGROUND

Kotrous commenced this action against Goss-Jewett and

numerous other parties in July 2002, to recover response costs

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and other damages resulting from alleged

contamination at his real property, located at 4301 Iron Point

Road, Sacramento, California (the “Site”), that was leased for

over thirty years to Goss-Jewett. Goss-Jewett cross-claimed

against Bayer alleging that Stauffer Chemical (“Stauffer),

Bayer’s predecessor, caused a release of perchlorethylene (“PCE”)

at the Site. While Bayer admits Stauffer supplied PCE to GossJewett’s facility located on the Site, Bayer contends in moving

for summary judgment that there is no colorable evidence that

Stauffer ever delivered PCE to the Site. According to Bayer,

there is no evidence that Stauffer owned or operated the tanker

truck at issue, released any PCE at the Site, or is otherwise

responsible for the contamination at the Site.

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 342 Filed 02/17/10 Page 3 of 10
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

During the regular course of discovery, in October 2009,

Goss-Jewett noticed the deposition of Bayer’s corporate

representative in order to discover facts relating to the

delivery of PCE to Goss-Jewett and the Site. (Ex. A to Oca

Decl., filed Jan. 29, 2010.) Initially, Bayer objected to GossJewett’s notice, stating, among other things, that it had no

relevant witnesses on the issue of deliveries of PCE to GossJewett. (Id. at Ex. C.) Thereafter, Goss-Jewett communicated

with Bayer in an attempt to reach an agreement on a date for a

deposition of Bayer’s corporate representative. (Id. at ¶s 6-7;

Johnson Decl., filed Feb. 4, 2010.) Ultimately, though still

insisting that it had no relevant witnesses, Bayer agreed to

produce a corporate witness, but the parties could not agree on a

date for the deposition which was prior to the scheduled close of

discovery on November 30, 2009. (Marsh Decl., filed Feb. 8,

2010, ¶s 3-5.) Instead, the first mutually agreeable date was

December 7, 2009. That date, however, was post- the discovery

cut-off. 

Goss-Jewett and Bayer, as well as other parties, then

reached an agreement to request an extension of the discovery

deadline from the court so that a variety of additional

depositions could be conducted, including the deposition of

Bayer’s corporate representative. (Johnson Decl., ¶s 3-9.) 

However, Kotrous, among others, would not agree to continue the

deadlines. (Oca Decl., ¶ 8.)

Discovery closed on November 30, 2009, and no party moved to

extend the deadline. Thereafter on January 12 and 14, 2010,

Bayer filed its motions for summary judgment against Kotrous,

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 342 Filed 02/17/10 Page 4 of 10
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

5 Specifically, the declarations of Duane Comstock, Kelly

Darnell, and Kathy Wuelzer (sometimes referred to herein as

“declarants”).

6 Said notice, made pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), requested

that Bayer produce a person or persons to testify on behalf of

Bayer on the following matters: “1) The delivery of . . . ‘PCE’ .

. . to the former [Goss-Jewett] site located at 4301 Power Inn

Road, . . . (the “Site”) between 1960 and 1988, including details

regarding the amount and frequency of PCE deliveries and how the

PCE was delivered to the Site; 2) Any ‘release,’ as that term is

defined in CERCLA . . . of . . . PCE . . . that was allegedly

released at the Site by [Stauffer], including the date of such

release, the volume or rate of release, the chemical composition

of material released, and any witnesses to the release; 3) the

spill procedures followed by [Stauffer] during deliveries to the

[Site] . . . between 1960 and 1988.”

7 Bayer mistakenly interprets Goss-Jewett’s motion as

only requesting permission to depose Goss-Jewett’s, to date

unidentified, “corporate representative.” The court interprets

Goss-Jewett’s motion as requesting permission to depose the three

declarants and any other persons who may have relevant

information as described in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice.

5

Goss-Jewett and the Anselmo parties. As sole support for its

motions, Bayer submitted the declarations of three former

Stauffer employees who attested that Stauffer never delivered PCE

to Goss-Jewett’s facility via Stauffer tanker tanks during the

relevant times.5

 Rather, transportation was provided by an

independent carrier, Post Transportation. Bayer had disclosed

the names of these Stauffer employees in 2005 in its Second

Supplemental Initial Disclosures (Marsh Decl., ¶ 6); however,

significantly, it did not identify these individuals as relevant

witnesses in response to Goss-Jewett’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

notice.6

Goss-Jewett now moves to continue Bayer’s motion for summary

judgment in order to depose these individuals or any other Bayer

witness who falls within the parameters of Goss-Jewett’s

corporate deposition notice.7 (Oca Decl, Ex. A.)

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 342 Filed 02/17/10 Page 5 of 10
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

6

STANDARD

1. Rule 16(b)

A pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a

showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The district

court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory committee’s notes

(1983 amendment)). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule

16 primarily focuses upon the diligence of the party requesting

the amendment. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to

the party opposing the modification might supply additional

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id.

2. Rule 56(f)

When a party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot

present “facts essential to justify his opposition” to the

motion, Rule 56(f) permits the party to submit an affidavit

stating such reasons, and the court may continue or deny the

motion if the opposing party needs to discover essential facts. 

Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 15154, 1518

(9th Cir. 1987). Specifically, Rule 56(f) provides:

If the party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that,

for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential

to justify its opposition, the court may . . . order a

continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, 

depositions to be taken, or other discovery to taken[.].

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The burden is on the party seeking

additional discovery to demonstrate that the information sought

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 342 Filed 02/17/10 Page 6 of 10
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

7

exists, and that it would prevent summary judgment. Nidds v.

Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 921 (9th Cir. 1996). The

moving party must also demonstrate that it diligently pursued

previous discovery opportunities. Qualls v. Blue Cross of

California, 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit

has noted that “denial of a Rule 56(f) application is generally

disfavored where the party opposing summary judgment makes (a) a

timely application which (b) specifically identifies (c) relevant

information, (d) where there is some basis for believing the

information sought actually exists.” Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v.

Bankcard Holders of Am., 784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986).

ANALYSIS

Preliminarily, the court finds good cause to reopen

discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Goss-Jewett and the

other parties opposing Bayer’s motions for summary judgment to

depose Bayer’s witnesses. Goss-Jewett diligently pursued

discovery against Bayer. It noticed Goss-Jewett’s corporate

representative deposition in October 2009, providing Bayer a

month’s notice of the November 13, 2009 deposition. However,

Bayer objected to the deposition, claiming, despite later

producing the subject declarations of the three Stauffer

employees, that it had no relevant witnesses. Indeed, it did. 

While Bayer ultimately agreed to produce an unnamed corporate

representative on December 7, 2010, that day fell outside the

discovery period. Goss-Jewett attempted to obtain a stipulation

by all the parties to extend the discovery deadline for limited

purposes, but all parties, including Kotrous, would not agree. 

Understandably, Goss-Jewett did not force the issue believing

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 342 Filed 02/17/10 Page 7 of 10
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

Bayer that it was unaware of any relevant witnesses.

Promptly upon receiving Bayer’s motion which was based on

the declarations of the three Stauffer employees, who were

persons responsive to Goss-Jewett’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

notice, Goss-Jewett filed the instant motion. Such conduct

constitutes the requisite diligence under Rule 16(b). Johnson,

975 F.2d at 609.

Additionally, considering Goss-Jewett’s diligence in

pursuing discovery, it has likewise made the requisite showing

under Rule 56(f) to permit further discovery. During the regular

course of discovery, Goss-Jewett attempted to discover facts to

establish Stauffer’s involvement in the subject activities at the

Site; its Rule 30(b)(6) notice to Bayer sought witnesses with

information relating to (1) deliveries of PCE to the Site between

1960 and 1988, including the amount and frequency of the PCE

deliveries and how the deliveries were made; (2) any releases of

PCE by Stauffer employees at the Site; and (3) Stauffer’s spill

procedures. See n. 6 supra. While the three Stauffer employees

have now attested that Stauffer did not make any deliveries of

PCE to Goss-Jewett during the relevant time, Goss-Jewett was

entitled to test this testimony during a deposition. The

declarants were persons falling within the parameters of GossJewett’s deposition notice, and Bayer should have timely produced

them in response to the notice. 

Indeed, it is often through such discovery that a party

learns additional facts that may lead to further discovery. 

Goss-Jewett was entitled to hear the testimony of the declarants

prior to the close of discovery; even if the declarants had

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 342 Filed 02/17/10 Page 8 of 10
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

testified at their depositions consistently with their

declarations submitted now (indicating that they had no

information that Staffer was the cause of any releases of PCE at

the Site), the deposition process may have lead Goss-Jewett to

additional facts that could assist it in establishing Staffer’s

role in making deliveries of PCE to Goss-Jewett. The court

cannot find, as urged by Bayer and Kotrous, that there is no

basis for believing that further discovery will reveal facts

sufficient for Goss-Jewett, and the other parties, to withstand

summary judgment. Visa Int’l, 784 F.3d at 1475 (holding that a

Rule 56(f) motion should be granted when a party makes a timely

application, specifically identifies relevant information and

there exists some basis for believing the information actually

exists). Goss-Jewett has sufficiently identified the specific

and relevant information that it would like to procure through

additional discovery. Under the circumstances, the court finds

said discovery warranted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Goss-Jewett’s

motion to continue Bayer’s motions for summary judgment to permit

time for further discovery. Said discovery shall be completed

within 60 days of the date of this order. To further support its

motions, Bayer may file and serve amended memoranda and any

supporting evidence, addressing the further discovery, on or

before April 23, 2010; Goss-Jewett, the Anselmo parties and

Kotrous may file and serve amended oppositions on or before May

7, 2010. Bayer’s replies shall be filed and served on or before

May 14, 2010. The continued hearings on Bayer’s motions set for

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 342 Filed 02/17/10 Page 9 of 10
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

10

May 21, 2010 are confirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: February 17, 2010

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 342 Filed 02/17/10 Page 10 of 10