Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00388-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

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

EDNA AFFHOLTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FRANKLIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT,

et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-0388 OWW DLB

SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE ORDER 

Further Scheduling

Conference: 6/13/08 8:15

Ctrm. 3

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

December 7, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Marderosian, Runyon, Cercone, Lehman & Armo by Michael G.

Marderosian, Esq., Michael E. Lehman, Esq., Brett L. Runyon,

Esq.; Shernoff, Bidart & Darras by Michael J. Bidart, Esq.; and

Law Office of Jack Silver by Jack Silver, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Plaintiffs.

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith by Sean Richmond, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Defendant Franklin County Water District.

Jacobson, Hansen, Najarian & McQuillan by Leith B. Hansen,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant AA & A Associates.

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 93 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

LaMore, Brazier, Riddle & Giampaoli by Jeffrey F. Oneal,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants Merced Irrigation District

and Merced Drainage District No. 1.

Greben & Associates by Jan A. Greben, Esq. and Allen,

Proietti & Fagalde by Terry L. Allen, appeared on behalf of

Defendant County of Merced.

Myers & Mayfield by Gregory L. Myers, Esq. and Laurie

Mayfield, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant City of Merced.

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth by Stephen E.

Carroll, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Ranchwood Homes

Corp.

Barg, Coffin, Lewis & Trapp by John Barg, Esq. and Stephen

C. Lewis, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants Merck & Co.,

Inc.; Amsted Industries, Inc.; and Baltimore Aircoil Company,

Inc.

Gary Drummond, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant

Meadowbrook Water Company.

No one appeared on behalf of J.F. Pritchard & Co.

Creech, Liebow & Kraus by Randall C. Creech, Esq., appeared

on behalf of Defendant Santa Fe Aero Vista, LLC.

III. Status of Service of Summons and Complaint.

1. At present, Defendant J.F. Pritchard & Co. is unserved. 

Plaintiffs shall undertake to locate, if possible, and determine

the legal status of J.F. Pritchard & Co.

IV. Further Scheduling Conference.

1. The parties discussed the status of service of existing

Defendants, the deadline for adding new parties Plaintiff, and

the likelihood that other parties may be joined and/or that

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 93 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

cross-claims, counter-claims, and third-party complaints for

contribution and/or indemnity may be instituted. 

2. The status of discovery was discussed and it is

recognized that at least six additional months will be necessary

to complete existing discovery plans and for a questionnaire that

the parties have developed to be meaningfully answered by all

those to whom it is propounded. 

3. Upon agreement of all parties, a scheduling conference

shall be held in this case on June 13, 2008, at 8:15 a.m. The

parties may appear telephonically if they are more than 50 miles

away from the courthouse. 

V. Further Scheduling Conference. 

1. At the June 13, 2008, scheduling conference, the

parties shall be prepared to discuss discovery cut-off,

dispositive motion schedule and the setting of a trial date. Any

new parties who have been joined shall serve their Rule 26

discovery disclosure responses on or before 45 days after the

date of service of the Summons and Complaint. 

VI. Defendants’ Questionnaire.

1. The time for responses to the Defendants’ questionnaire

that has been agreed by all parties to be utilized in this case,

shall be 90 days following the date of service of that

questionnaire by any Defendant. If a party who has been served

with the questionnaire fails to respond within the 90 day period,

the following schedule is adopted for the response to

questionnaires: all Plaintiffs shall have 90 days to respond to

Defendants’ questionnaire. At the end of 90 days, if any

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the questionnaire, counsel for

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 93 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiffs shall serve and file a notice of non-response stating

that the Plaintiff has not answered the questionnaire and the

reason the questionnaire was not answered. Following that 30 day

period, any Plaintiff who fails to respond to the questionnaire

shall be required to serve, file and set for hearing a motion for

a 30 day extension to provide responses to the questionnaire. 

The application for 30 day extension shall be decided upon a good

cause standard using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37

Jurisprudence. Upon the Court’s denying a motion for 30 day

extension, the Plaintiff who has failed to respond, shall be

dismissed as a party from this case and judgment shall be entered

in favor of Defendants and against that Plaintiff. If a

Plaintiff fails to respond within the 150 day period and no

application for 30 day extension upon failure to respond is

filed, that Plaintiff shall be dismissed from the lawsuit and

judgment entered against that Plaintiff and in favor of

Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 93 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 4