Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07497/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07497-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 

Joseph W. Cotchett (SBN 36324)

jcotchett@cpmlegal.com

Philip L. Gregory (SBN 95217) 

pgregory@cpmlegal.com

Sean E. Ponist (SBN 204712)

sponist@cpmlegal.com

Joseph C. Wilson (SBN 249027)

jwilson@cpmlegal.com

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200

Burlingame, CA 94010

Telephone: (650) 697-6000

Facsimile: (650) 697-0577

William G. Bertain (SBN 70163)

bbertain@suddenlink.net

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM G. BERTAIN

1310 Sixth Street

Eureka, CA 95501

Telephone: (707) 443-5078

Facsimile: (707) 443-4998

Paul N. “Pete” McCloskey, Jr. (SBN 24541)

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, JR.

600 Allerton Street, Suite 202

Redwood City, CA 94063

Telephone: (650) 568-3110

Facsimile: (650) 568-3376 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Edgar B. Washburn (SBN 34038)

ewashburn@mofo.com

Christopher J. Carr (SBN 184076)

ccarr@mofo.com

William M. Sloan (SBN 203583)

wsloan@mofo.com

Shaye Diveley (SBN 215602)

sdiveley@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 268-7000

Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

Attorneys for Defendants

MAXXAM INC., and Charles E.

Hurwitz 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.

RICHARD WILSON and CHRIS

MARANTO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAXXAM INC., a Delaware corporation;

THE PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY, a

Delaware corporation; SCOTIA PACIFIC

COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company; SALMON CREEK LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company;

CHARLES E. HURWITZ, an individual,

Defendants. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C-06-7497 CW

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 1 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. PRE-DISCOVERY DISCLOSURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. DISCOVERY PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. Subjects Identified by Plaintiffs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. Subjects Identified by Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

C. Reservation of Objections to Scope of Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

D. Written Discovery Limits. ..........................................5

E. Production of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”). ..................6

F. Privilege Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

G. Assertions of Privilege as to Inadvertently Produced Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

H. Depositions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

I. Expert Discovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

J. Amendment of Previously Served Discovery Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

K. Discovery Deadlines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

ORDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 1

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN

The parties in the above-entitled action submit this Joint Report Pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Civil Local Rule 16-9. Sean E. Ponist of Cotchett, Pitre &

McCarthy, counsel for Relators Richard Wilson and Chris Maranto, suing on behalf of the

United States of America (“Plaintiff”), and Christopher J. Carr of Morrison & Foerster LLP,

counsel for Maxxam Inc., The Pacific Lumber Company, Scotia Pacific Company LLC, Salmon

Creek LLC, Charles E. Hurwitz (“Defendants”), met telephonically on March 17, 2008 and

corresponded subsequently thereafter and discussed the matters set forth herein. Based on that

meeting and subsequent written and oral correspondence between counsel, the parties report to

this Court as follows:

I. PRE-DISCOVERY DISCLOSURES.

The parties will exchange the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(1) on or before April 18, 2008. 

II. DISCOVERY PLAN. 

The parties jointly propose the following discovery plan which incorporates the Court’s

prior orders and includes further detail regarding the matters set forth herein. The parties agree

that they are entitled to discovery on any matter relevant to any claim or defense, or that may

lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. 

A. Subjects Identified by Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs identify the following subjects as ones with respect to which they intend to

conduct discovery:

1. Whether Defendants’ sustained yield plan (“SYP”) was fabricated, and in

that connection:

(a) Whether Defendants’ computer simulation was based on the

inclusion of hardwood measures;

(b) Whether the written SYP plan and actual on-the-ground

implementation of the SYP was based on conifer measures only.

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 3 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 2

2. Whether Defendants’ SYP computer simulation strategy resulted in

projections for conifer harvest that could not be achieved from those

specific forest stands selected for harvest in the first 10-year planning

period.

3. Whether Defendants obtained approval for an unsupportable, excessive

rate of cutting.

4. Whether Defendants misled the California Department of Forestry and

Fire Protection (“CDF”) to approve the inflated SYP.

5. Whether Defendants deceived the state and federal governments into

paying over $360 million in cash and property for the Headwaters and Elk

Head Springs lands, the protection of Pacific Lumber Company’s

surrounding land, and an accurate and truthful SYP.

6. Whether Defendants made false claims for payment of the purchase price

of the Headwaters and Elk Head Springs Forest lands by submitting to the

CDF an SYP that falsely represented as sustainable the projected harvest

yields of their remaining land.

7. Whether Defendants falsified their computer simulation to obtain approval

of the SYP.

8. Whether Defendants manipulated its modeling parameters to obtain

approval to harvest sufficient timber to enable them to make interests

payments on close to a billion dollars of timber bonds issued in August

1998.

9. Whether the operating losses that Defendants contended they were

sustaining was the a function of corporate indebtedness, rather than any

restrictions on its timber harvesting practices.

10. Whether Defendants understood that the commitments they were making

pursuant to the SYP and habitat conservation plan (“HCP”) were part of

the consideration for the Headwaters transaction.

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 4 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 3

11. Whether Defendant Hurwitz was paid for his assistance in securing the

Headwaters agreement.

12. Whether Defendants falsified the computer simulation parameters in their

SYP analysis.

13. Whether CDF would have approved the SYP had it been informed of the

manipulated SYP model put forth by Defendants.

14. Whether Defendants were the alter egos of one another, so that the

individuality and separateness of each entity Defendant, if such

individuality and separateness ever existed, has ceased.

15. Whether Defendants were agents, aiders and abettors and conspirators of

the improper act, plans, schemes, and transactions that are the subject of

the complaint.

16. Whether each Defendant was the agent, servant, employee and/or joint

venturer of each of the remaining Defendants.

17. Whether each Defendant is responsible in some manner for the events

referred to in the complaint.

18. Whether each Defendant is responsible for the damages sustained by the

United States as alleged in the complaint.

19. Whether Defendants knowingly and willingly conspired and agreed

among themselves to engage in a fraudulent scheme the purposes of which

included, but were not limited to, violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) as

alleged in the complaint.

20. Whether Defendants conspired with each other to have false or fraudulent

claims allowed and paid as alleged in the complaint.

21. Whether one or more Defendants acted in furtherance of the conspiracy

and the United States Government sustained damages as a result thereof.

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 5 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 4

22. Whether Defendants transferred the Pacific Lumber Company debt to

Scotia Pacific Holding, rather than use the lucrative proceeds of their

accelerated timber harvest to retire the junk bond debt.

23. Whether Pacific Lumber Company formed Scotia Pacific Holding

Company in December of 1992, capitalizing it via an issuance of $235

million of junk bonds with a yield of 10.5%.

24. Whether in June 1998, Pacific Lumber Company formed Scotia Pacific as

a limited liability company, and soon thereafter Scotia Pacific issued

$867,248,000 in timber notes and the prospectuses and other financial

disclosures related thereto. 

25. The April 2005 Gjerde Report, as referenced in paragraphs 52-55 of the

complaint. 

26. The July 1998 Prospectus for the $867 million Timber Collateralized

Bond Issuance

B. Subjects Identified by Defendants

Defendants identify the following subjects as ones with respect to which they intend to

conduct discovery:

1. Whether the allegations in the Complaint were publicly disclosed and when.

2. Whether Maranto is an original source of the information upon which the

allegations in the Complaint are based.

3. Whether Wilson is an original source of the information upon which the

allegations in the Complaint are based.

4. When Maranto “discovered” the alleged fraudulent conduct.

5. When Wilson “discovered” the alleged fraudulent conduct.

6. Maranto’s responsibilities during his tenure at the California Department

of Forestry and Fire Protection.

7. Maranto’s background, qualifications and experience.

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 6 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 5

8. Wilson’s responsibilities during his tenure at the California Department of

Forestry and Fire Protection. 

9. Wilson’s background, qualifications and experience.

C. Reservation of Objections to Scope of Discovery

The parties do not waive any objections they may have to discovery of the subject

matters identified by each other. While the parties believe that many of the subjects identified

are appropriate subjects of discovery, they disagree with certain characterizations of those

subjects. Rather than object to the subjects identified or to the characterizations of those

subjections at this time, the parties agree that they may reserve the right to object to the scope of

discovery.

D. Written Discovery Limits. 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34, 35 and 36 will apply to written discovery in this

action. 

1. Interrogatories. The parties agree that each side will propound no more

than 25 interrogatories to the other side absent leave of court or written stipulation. 

2. Production of Publicly Available Documents. The parties agree that, with

respect to publicly available documents, a party responding to a request for production may

specifically identify the responsive publicly available documents in lieu of producing them,

including:

(a) The title of each responsive publicly available document;

(b) The internet address at which that document can be found, if known to the

responding party; and

(c) Should the propounding party not be able to readily obtain a copy of the

document (i.e., if the document is not readily accessible on an internet website), the responding

party will produce a copy of the document to the propounding party within ten days after the

propounding party requests the document in writing.

3. Authentication of Publicly Available Documents. Should a party

responding to a document request identify a publicly available document that has been filed with

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 7 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 6

a governmental agency and is available from that governmental agency’s website in lieu of

producing the document, the responding party will not thereafter object to the genuineness of

that document if retrieved from that governmental agency’s website and accompanied by a

declaration of the requesting party’s counsel or an employee of the requesting party’s counsel

stating that they have retrieved the document from the governmental website identified by the

responding party absent good reason to believe that the downloaded document is incomplete or

is inconsistent with the on-line version.

 E. Production of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”). 

1. Obligation to Produce ESI. The parties acknowledge and agree that to the

extent they possess electronically stored information (“ESI”) responsive to a document request,

that ESI is within the scope of matters subject to discovery in this case.

2. Production of Native Format Documents. ESI may be produced using one

of the three following methods, which method will be subject to meet and confer between the

parties. For any ESI that exists in encrypted format or is password-protected, the producing

party will provide the propounding party a means to gain access to those native files (for

example, by supplying passwords).

(a) Emails. Emails may be produced in native format, such as .pst,

.nsf, .edb, et c. The method produced will be subject to further meet and confer between the

parties.

(b) ESI That is Practical to Produce with Links. ESI (for example,

spreadsheets, word processing documents, presentations) may be produced in electronic format

suitable for loading to a litigation support database with links to the native files. ESI produced

in native file format will be assigned a unique DocID number within the litigation database. The

producing party will provide a litigation database load file which will contain, as one of the

fields, the MD-5 hash value of each file produced in native format.

(c) ESI That is Impractical to Produce with Links to a Database. The

parties understand and acknowledge that certain categories of ESI are structurally complex and

do not lend themselves to production as native format documents with links to a litigation

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 8 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 7

database. For example, when data existing originally in Primavera, MS Access, Oracle, and

Microsoft SQL Server in some instances renaming and/or linking a native document comprised

of subparts will render the document unusable. After meet and confer, the parties may agree to

produce these types of documents in native form, accompanied with a bates number and MD-5

hash value, but separate from a litigation support database. In those instances, if a propounding

party or its experts lack access to proprietary software needed to review the producing party’s

ESI in native format, the parties will meet and confer to obtain a resolution which allows that

party to view the affected documents.

(d) Production of Pictures/Images. Any photographic images created

and/or maintained in electronic format will be produced in that format.

3. Production Media. The producing party will use the appropriate

electronic media (CD, DVD or hard drive) for its ESI production, and will cooperate in good

faith to use the highest-capacity available media to minimize associated overhead. The

producing party will label the physical media with the producing party, production date, media

volume name, and document number range.

4. Avoidance of Duplicate Production. Each producing party will take all

reasonable steps to reduce duplication of ESI. De-duplication will be performed within a

custodian. The producing party will maintain references to all removed duplicate files.

F. Privilege Logs. 

The following categories of communications need not be listed on any party’s privilege

log: 

(1) Intra-law firm communications and/or memoranda; 

(2) Communications and/or memoranda exchanged solely between a party

and its litigation counsel and that concern a claim or defense in this litigation;

(3) Communications and/or memoranda among litigation counsel for

Plaintiffs, or among litigation counsel for Defendants; 

(4) Communications and/or memoranda exchanged solely between a party’s

in-house counsel and that party (or in the case of a corporate party, those individuals whose

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 9 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 8

communications with counsel are privileged under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and the cases

interpreting that rule) which consist exclusively of a request for, or giving of, legal advice to that

party; and 

(5) Communications and/or memoranda exchanged between party's counsel

and consultants retained by or on behalf of the party in connection with this litigation, including

but not limited to communications in which the party participates, unless the consultant is named

as a testifying expert and relies upon the subject document for any opinion rendered in this case.

G. Assertions of Privilege as to Inadvertently Produced Materials. 

A party (the “producing party”) who inadvertently produces to another party (the

“receiving party”) information for which the producing party is otherwise entitled to claim a

privilege or immunity, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege or the attorney

work product immunity, will not be deemed to have waived that privilege or immunity because

of that inadvertent production. Upon discovering that it has inadvertently produced privileged or

protected information, the producing party will promptly notify the receiving party in writing of

that inadvertent production and specify the nature of and basis for its claim of privilege or

immunity. If the material is contained in a previously produced document that also contains

material that is not privileged or protected, the producing party will provide the receiving party

with a new copy of the document with the privileged or protected material redacted when it gives

notice of the claimed inadvertent production. As soon as practicable after receiving the notice of

claimed inadvertent production, the receiving party will sequester the subject material, and if it

has disclosed the material before receiving the notice, will take all reasonable steps to retrieve

the material. Within ten days after receiving notice of the claimed inadvertent production, the

receiving party will either: (a) destroy or return to the producing party all copies of the subject

material; or (b) notify the producing party that it contests the claim of privilege or immunity and

present a copy of the information to the Court under seal for resolution of the dispute. The

producing party will bear the burden of proof on any claim of privilege or immunity. After the

producing party gives notice of the claimed inadvertent production, and until the Court resolves

any dispute over the claim of privilege or immunity, the producing party must preserve the

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 10 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 9

material, and the receiving party may not use the material for any purpose. If the subject

material is material the receiving party intended to use in connection with any motion,

opposition to motion, or reply, the receiving party may obtain an order extending the relevant

filing deadline by filing with the Court a declaration of counsel stating that the subject material

bears on the disposition of that motion.

H. Depositions. 

The parties will cooperate in deposition scheduling to limit travel time and expense to the

parties. Except as otherwise separately agreed, the parties stipulate that depositions will be taken

at mutually convenient locations near the deponent’s workplaces or residences. 

The parties will cooperate in good faith to make efficient use of deposition time, but

understand and agree that because of the number of defendants, the number of potentially

knowledgeable employees of defendants, the number of percipient witnesses (whether identified

in a party’s initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, through a review of

publicly-filed documents, or otherwise), and the number of outside consultants, it will be

necessary to schedule more than ten depositions as provided under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 30(a)(2). At this time, the parties agree that each side may take a total of 25

depositions without further stipulation of the parties or order of the court. 

Should a party believe that additional depositions are necessary, it will identify the

deponent or deponents whose deposition it requests, and the parties will meet and confer in good

faith concerning the necessity for that deposition. Neither party waives its right to request leave

of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) to take additional depositions.

The parties will cooperate in good faith to avoid having a person who may be designated

as an expert witness but who is also a percipient witness be deposed more than once. Upon

notice that a party seeks to take the deposition of a person whom the opposing party

contemplates designating as a testifying expert, the opposing party will so notify the noticing

party. The noticing party may not obtain the deponent’s testimony on his or her expert opinions

until and unless that person is designated as an expert and provides his or her expert report or

reports. The noticing party may take the deponent’s deposition as a percipient witness at any

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 11 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 10

time prior the close of expert discovery, notwithstanding the close of fact discovery. Should the

opposing party determine at any time that it will not designate the deponent as a testifying

expert, it must so notify the noticing party within five business days after making that

determination. If that deponent has not been previously deposed as a percipient witness based on

the expectation that he or she would be deposed on his or her percipient knowledge and expert

opinions in a single deposition, the noticing party may take the deponent’s deposition on the

earliest date that is mutually convenient to the deponent and counsel, giving consideration to the

case schedule and volume of documents on which the noticing party may examine that witness. 

Should the deponent testify or produce documents concerning any fact issue after the parties

have exchanged expert reports, the noticing party’s experts may amend their reports to reflect or

opine on the documents or testimony so provided. Nothing herein will bar a party who does not

contemplate designating the deponent as an expert at the time the deposition notice issues from

later designating that person as an expert; provided, that in that event, a party who has not

designated the person as an expert will have the opportunity to take that person’s deposition on

the matters subject to his or her expert opinion within the course of expert discovery.

I. Expert Discovery. 

The parties agree that the following categories of documents will not be subject to

production: (1) drafts of expert reports; and (2) communications between counsel and any expert.

J. Amendment of Previously Served Discovery Requests.

Any discovery requests a party has served prior to the parties’ agreement on the content

of the Joint Discovery Plan are hereby amended to incorporate its relevant terms.

K. Discovery Deadlines.

The parties shall exchange expert reports by September 2, 2008 and any rebuttal reports

not later than October 2, 2008. All fact discovery and expert discovery shall be completed no

later than November 3, 2008. As to Defendants The Pacific Lumber Company, Scotia Pacific

Company LLC and Salmon Creek LLC, discovery shall commence June 1, 2008 or upon

confirmation of their reorganization, which ever occurs first. 

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 12 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 11

THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their respective

counsel of record that, subject to Court approval, this shall serve as the Joint Discovery Plan in

this litigation.

IT IS SO AGREED.

DATED: April 3, 2008. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY

 /s/ 

SEAN E. PONIST (SBN 204712)

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200

Burlingame, CA 94010

William G. Bertain (SBN 70163)

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM G. BERTAIN

1310 Sixth Street

Eureka, CA 95501

Paul N. “Pete” McCloskey, Jr. (SBN 24541)

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, JR.

600 Allerton Street, Suite 202

Redwood City, CA 94063

Attorneys for Plaintiff the United States of America

ex rel. Richard Wilson and Chris Maranto

MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP

 /s/ 

CHRISTOPHER J. CARR (SBN 184076) 

425 Market Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Attorneys for Defendants

MAXXAM INC., The Pacific Lumber Company,

Scotia Pacific Company LLC, Salmon Creek LLC, 

and Charles E. Hurwitz

I, Sean E. Ponist, am the ECF user whose ID and password is being used to file this Joint

Discovery Plan. In compliance with General Order 45, X, B., I hereby attest that Christopher

Carr has concurred with this filing.

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 13 of 14
vLAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE &

MCCARTHY

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

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND ORDER- CASE NO. C-06-7497 12

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties’ agreed Joint Discovery Plan, it is SO ORDERED.

4/7/08

Dated: .

 

HON. CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-07497-CW Document 48 Filed 04/07/08 Page 14 of 14