Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00883/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00883-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Electro Tech Corporation
Counter Defendant
I.E.-Pacific, Inc.
Counter Claimant
Miller-Watts Constructors, Inc.
Defendant
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
Defendant

Document Text:

SECOND AMENDED JOINT APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD)

 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 

John W. Ralls (State Bar No. 148233) 

Jeffrey A. Wilcox (State Bar No. 236390) 

THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN & STEINER LLP 

101 Second Street, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, California 94105-3606 

Telephone: (415) 371-1200 

Facsimile: (415) 371-1211 

Attorneys for Use-Plaintiff 

ELECTRO TECH CORPORATION 

P. Randolph Finch, Jr. (State Bar No. 185004) 

Andrea L. Petray (State Bar No. 240085) 

MARKS, GOLIA & FINCH, LLP 

3900 Harney Street, First Floor 

San Diego, California 92110-2825 

Telephone: (619) 293-7000 

Facsimile: (619) 293-7362 

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants 

I.E.-PACIFIC, INC., MILLER-WATTS CONSTRUCTORS, INC., and ST. PAUL FIRE AND 

MARINE INSURANCE CO. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for 

the use and benefit of ELECTRO TECH 

CORPORATION, 

 Use-Plaintiff, 

v. 

I.E.-PACIFIC, INC., MILLER/WATTS 

CONSTRUCTORS, INC., and ST. PAUL 

FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

 Defendants and Counterclaimants. 

CASE NO: 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD) 

SECOND AMENDED JOINT APPLICATION 

AND ORDER MODIFYING THE COURT’S 

JULY 24, 2006 STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) ORDER 

Complaint Filed: April 24, 2006 

Trial Date: July 31, 2007 

Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 

SECOND AMENDED JOINT APPLICATION MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER

I.E.-Pacific, Inc., Miller/Watts Constructors, Inc., St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 

Company, and Electro Tech Corporation (the “Parties”) through their respective counsel of 

record, respectfully submit this Second Amended Joint Application and [Proposed] Order 

Case 2:06-cv-00883-WBS-DAD Document 19 Filed 12/28/06 Page 1 of 4
2 

SECOND AMENDED JOINT APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD)

 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 

Modifying the July 24, 2006 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (“Scheduling Order”). By this 

amended application, the parties request jointly an extension of certain discovery deadlines 

while maintaining the dates for the pre-trial conference and trial. 

The parties are diligently pursuing discovery in this action, but require additional time 

to complete percipient discovery—especially depositions—in an orderly and efficient fashion 

before proceeding with expert discovery. The parties respectfully submit that they have good 

cause for this request. 

The need for this extension has just become apparent to the parties as a consequence of 

the ongoing exchange of pretrial fact discovery responses that have remained consistent with 

the Scheduling Order. The Scheduling Order set an aggressive timeline for the conduct of 

pretrial fact and expert discovery, particularly relative to the trial date. The parties now find 

that they need additional time to review documents, and prepare and digest interrogatory 

responses, before moving on to depositions. 

This case arises out of two, large federal construction projects. The universe of 

potentially relevant documents is huge. The parties are currently reviewing documents, and 

requests for production of documents are pending. The parties are also exchanging 

interrogatory responses, which will include important information about the parties’ alleged 

damages. The parties believe that the fact depositions and expert discovery will be more 

meaningful and efficient if this discovery is completed first. 

The requested modification to the timeline set in the Scheduling Order would not 

impact the Court’s calendar. The parties’ stipulation relates to the timeline for fact and expert 

discovery only, and will not impact the final pretrial conference calendared for June 4, 2007, or 

the trial setting for July 31, 2007. 

Even under the modified schedule, the parties will have completed fact discovery by 

March 30, 2007, 75 days before the pretrial conference and 131 days before the trial. 

For the foregoing reasons, and other good cause, the parties jointly apply to modify the 

July 24, 2006 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order. The parties have not previously requested 

any extensions to the following pretrial proceedings: 

Case 2:06-cv-00883-WBS-DAD Document 19 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 4
3 

SECOND AMENDED JOINT APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD)

 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. Requests for leave of court to amend pleadings shall be made by February 15, 

2007. 

2. Pursuant to the July 24, 2006 Scheduling Order, all fact discovery (except for 

requests for production of documents, subpoenas for the production of 

documents, and depositions of fact witnesses) shall be completed by January 15, 

2007. Fact discovery relating to requests for production of documents, 

subpoenas for the production of documents, and depositions of fact witnesses is 

left open, save and except that it shall be so conducted as to be completed by 

March 30, 2007, as provided in 6, below. 

3. The parties shall disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(2) by no later than March 2, 2007. 

4. With regard to expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall 

be disclosed and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Rule 26(a)(2) on or before March 30. 

5. All expert discovery, including expert depositions, shall be completed by April 

27, 2007. 

6. All fact discovery, including depositions for preservation of testimony, is left 

open, save and except that it shall be so conducted as to be completed by 

March 30, 2007, and April 27, 2007, for expert discovery. The word 

“completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all 

depositions have been taken and any disputes relevant to discovery shall have 

been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been 

ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be 

noticed on the Magistrate Judge’s calendar, in accordance with the local rules of 

the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, and so that such 

motions may be heard (and any resulting orders obeyed) not later than March 

30, 2007, for fact discovery and April 27, 2007, for expert discovery. 

// 

Case 2:06-cv-00883-WBS-DAD Document 19 Filed 12/28/06 Page 3 of 4
4 

SECOND AMENDED JOINT APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2:06-CV-00883-WBS (DAD)

 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. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining 

orders or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before April 13, 

2007, for hearing not later than May 18, 2007. All motions shall be noticed for 

the next available hearing date. Counsel are cautioned to refer to the local rules 

regarding the requirements for noticing and opposing such motions on the 

court’s regularly scheduled law and motion calendar. 

8. All other dates shall remain as stated in the July 24, 2006 Scheduling Order. 

The Joint Application and [Proposed] Order Modifying Scheduling Order submitted 

herein reflects a full and complete agreement between all parties and counsel. 

DATED: December 21, 2006 MARKS, GOLIA & FINCH, LLP 

By:____/s/____________________________

 P. RANDOLPH FINCH JR. 

 ANDREA L. PETRAY 

Attorneys for I.E.-Pacific, Inc., Miller/Watts 

Constructors, Inc., and St. Paul Fire and 

Marine Insurance Company 

 

DATED: December 21, 2006 THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN & 

STEINER LLP 

By:___/s/_____________________________

 JOHN W. RALLS 

JEFFREY A. WILCOX 

Attorneys for Electro-Tech Corporation 

ORDER

 Based on the amended joint application of the parties, and for good cause shown, the 

dates of the pretrial proceedings set forth above are modified in accordance with the dates 

proposed in paragraphs one through seven above. 

SO ORDERED: 

DATED: December 27, 2006. 

Ddad1/orders.civil/electrotech0883.ord 

Case 2:06-cv-00883-WBS-DAD Document 19 Filed 12/28/06 Page 4 of 4