Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02441/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02441-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

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 Pursuant to the Minute Order of May 9, 2006, the court

granted plaintiff’s ex parte application to hear the instant

motion on shorten time. However, the court finds that oral

argument will not be of material assistance and therefore orders

(continued...)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CITY OF LODI, CALIFORNIA,

NO. CIV. S-00-2441 FCD/JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER GRANTING LIMITED 

DISCOVERY STAY – NORTHERN 

PLUME

M & P INVESTMENTS, a

California Partnership, et

al.,

Defendants.

______________________ /

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS, 

COUNTERCLAIMS, THIRD PARTY

CLAIMS AND FOURTH PARTY 

CLAIMS

----oo0oo----

The court has reviewed plaintiff the City of Lodi’s motion

for a limited stay of discovery1 as to the Northern Plume

Case 2:00-cv-02441-FCD-KJM Document 2845 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 3
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(...continued)

the matter submitted on the briefs. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-

230(h).

2 On April 26, 2006, CDT served the City with

Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and an

Offer of Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68;

CDT also noticed a deposition for June 14, 2006 of the person

most knowledgeable from the City on a variety of topics. Under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34, the City’s written

responses are due May 26, 2006. Prior to filing the instant

motion, the City asked Belden CDT to withdraw the discovery

pending mediation or, in the alternative, grant the City an

extension of sixty (60) days to respond. Belden CDT refused and

opposes plaintiff’s instant motion.

2

parties, Northern Plume defendant Belden CDT‘s opposition

thereto,2 and the various statements of non-opposition to the

motion by other Northern Plume defendants and good cause

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

 that discovery be stayed with respect to the Northern 

 Plume and among the parties associated therewith until

 sixty (60) days following the upcoming Northern Plume

 mediation, but not to extend beyond August 15, 2006.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 26(c).

Said stay is merited in order to enable the Northern Plume

parties to continue focusing limited resources on the

characterization of the site and on resolution of the litigation

through mediation, which is set to continue on June 6, 2006. 

This limited stay is reasonable under the pre-trial deadlines

established by the Fourth Amended Scheduling Order (Northern,

Western and Southern Plume Trial), as modified on April 10, 2006

and does not prejudice any party’s ability to prepare for trial,

currently set for September 25, 2007. Given the court’s and the

parties’ interest in efficiently and cost-effectively resolving

the parties’ liability through mediation, the court finds that 

Case 2:00-cv-02441-FCD-KJM Document 2845 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 3
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 Upon the conclusion of said stay of discovery, should

any Northern Plume party find it necessary to extend the

presently set pre-trial and trial dates, it may so move the

court, and the court will consider the impact of the instant stay

on the proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.

3

good exists for granting plaintiff its requested relief.3

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 16, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:00-cv-02441-FCD-KJM Document 2845 Filed 05/16/06 Page 3 of 3