Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473-6/pdf.json

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

---

1 

SECOND STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES; ORDER 2:96-cv-1473 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2116 

and WILLIAM P. DEPAOLI, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ARCADY OIL COMPANY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Case No.: 2:96-cv-1473 FCD/KJM 

SECOND STIPULATION TO 

MODIFY DATES ESTABLISHED IN 

THE COURT’S STATUS ORDER; 

ORDER 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

AND CROSS-CLAIMS. 

 

1. This case involves alleged environmental contamination at a 3.5-

acre parcel of land (the “DePaoli Site”) located in the San Joaquin Delta, adjacent to 

the Whiskey Slough on Roberts Island in San Joaquin County, California. 

2. The Court issued its initial Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order for 

this action on December 11, 2006 (“2006 Status Order”). Last fall, Plaintiffs and the 

remaining Defendants1

 (collectively, the “Parties”) met and conferred concerning a 

 

1 The following Defendants have engaged in good faith discussions 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 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 388 Filed 04/23/08 Page 1 of 9
2 

SECOND STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES; ORDER 2:96-cv-1473 

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, the costs of which 

exceed the amount contained in the trust fund (approximately $75,000). To the extent 

the good faith negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties are willing to 

engage in a court-supervised settlement conference, or a mediation before Lester J. 

Levy (or other mutually-acceptable mediator). Once site closure has been achieved, 

via the Regional Board’s issuance of a “closure” or “no further action” letter or similar 

instrument, all Parties will dismiss their claims and this action will be terminated. 

4. On November 9, 2007, this Court entered an 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 

(“2007 Status Order”). 

5. Plaintiffs submitted a preliminary 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, the Regional Board 

 

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; 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 388 Filed 04/23/08 Page 2 of 9
3 

SECOND STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES; ORDER 2:96-cv-1473 

received a revised workplan on or about February 5, 2008. On March 18, 2008, the 

Regional Board conditionally approved the revised workplan. 

6. On March 31, 2008, Plaintiffs commenced implementation of the 

workplan at the DePaoli Site. Plaintiffs have advised that investigative field work 

should be completed by May 16, 2008. Thereafter, an additional period of time will 

be required to complete laboratory analysis of data collected from the site. 

7. After receipt and analysis of laboratory results, Plaintiffs will 

prepare a draft supplemental site assessment report. Following discussion with 

Defendants regarding the draft report, Plaintiffs will submit a final report to the 

Regional Board for review and comment. At this point, the Parties approximate the 

report will be submitted to the Regional Board by June 15, 2008. Subsequently, 

responsive comments from the Regional Board should be received within thirty to 

sixty days. 

7. Thereafter, Plaintiffs intend to timely prepare and submit a site 

closure plan to the Regional Board, with participation by Defendants in that process. 

In the event the Regional Board determines that no further action at the DePaoli Site is 

required, Plaintiffs intend to dismiss this action, and Defendants will also dismiss all 

cross-claims and counterclaims. 

8. To allow the Parties reasonable time to complete the ongoing 

supplemental site investigation, determine whether additional investigation is needed, 

and develop a site closure plan under Regional Board oversight, as well as to avoid 

undue litigation expense that would otherwise be required to comply with the 

deadlines established in the 2007 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 2007 Status Order as follows: 

 Current Date Proposed Date

Discovery Completion July 3, 2008 April 3, 2009 

Expert Designation July 17, 2008 April 17, 2009 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 388 Filed 04/23/08 Page 3 of 9
4 

SECOND STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES; ORDER 2:96-cv-1473 

Supplemental Expert Designation August 8, 2008 May 8, 2009 

Expert Discovery Completion October 8, 2008 July 8, 2009 

Last Day for Dispositive Motions 

to be Heard 

December 12, 2008 September 14, 2009 

Last Day to file Final Pretrial 

Conference Pleadings 

February 13, 2009 November 13, 2009 

Final Pretrial Conference February 20, 2009 

at 1:30 p.m. 

November 20, 2009 

Trial April 28, 2009 at 

9:00 a.m. 

(estimated 14-21 

days) 

January 25, 2010 

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 date set forth above. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the 

Parties hereto that the deadlines established by the Court in the 2007 Status Order may 

be modified as set forth above, and that the Stipulated Framework for Resolving 

Litigation, attached as Exhibit A to the 2007 Status Order and to this Stipulation, shall 

continue to be binding on the Parties. 

DATED: April , 2008 ISOLA LAW GROUP, LLP 

Reginald R. Schubert 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2116 and 

WILLIAM P. DEPAOLI 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 388 Filed 04/23/08 Page 4 of 9
5 

SECOND STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES; ORDER 2:96-cv-1473 

DATED: April , 2008 WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, 

 RUBALCAVA & MacCUISH LLP 

Andrew M. Gilford 

Peter A. Nyquist Elizabeth A. Fierman 

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 , 2008 BRIGHT AND BROWN 

Maureen Bright 

Kristen Taylor 

Attorneys for Defendant 

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 

DATED: April , 2008 THE COSTA LAW FIRM 

Daniel P. Costa 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Hexadyne Energy Corporation and Hexadyne Drilling Exploration 

DATED: April , 2008 ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 

Norman C. Hile 

Stephanie F. Zook Attorneys for Defendant 

CMS Nomeco Oil & Gas Co. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 388 Filed 04/23/08 Page 5 of 9
6 

SECOND STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES; ORDER 2:96-cv-1473 

DATED: April , 2008 BURNHAM & BROWN 

John J. Verber 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Venturini Associates 

DATED: April , 2008 BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP LLP 

Brian S. Haughton 

Donald E. Sobelman 

Maureen L. King 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Hamilton Brothers Corporation, Occidental 

Petroleum Corporation and OXY USA, Inc. 

DATED: April , 2008 NORIEGA & BRADSHAW LLP 

Robert J. Noriega 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Cleveland Drilling Co. 

GLYNN & FINLEY LLP 

Andrew T. Mortl 

Patricia L. Bonheyo 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ConocoPhillips Company, successor by merger to 

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

ORDER ON FOLLOWING PAGE. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 388 Filed 04/23/08 Page 6 of 9
7 

SECOND STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES; ORDER 2:96-cv-1473 

O R D E R

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

IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, the dates set forth in this Court’s modified status 

Order entered on November 9, 2007, are further modified consistent with the dates 

listed above EXCEPT as follows: all dispositive motions shall be heard no later than 

September 18, 2009. The start time for the final pretrial conference now set for 

November 20, 2009 shall be 1:30 p.m. The jury trial is set for January 26, 2010 at 

9:00 a.m. 

 

DATED: April 23, 2008 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 388 Filed 04/23/08 Page 7 of 9
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: 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 388 Filed 04/23/08 Page 8 of 9
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, 

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

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 to the Parties that regulatory closure of the 

DePaoli site cannot be achieved within the time provided by the eightmonth 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 388 Filed 04/23/08 Page 9 of 9