Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00952/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00952-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calamco
Defendant
California Ammonia Company
Defendant
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Plaintiff
United States
Amicus

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING

PROTECTION ALLIANCE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0952 WBS JFM

vs.

CALIFORNIA AMMONIA 

COMPANY dba CALAMCO,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff’s motion to compel additional site inspections came on regularly for

hearing December 15, 2005. Michael R. Lozeau appeared for plaintiff. James M. Morris

appeared for defendant. The parties had agreed to one wet season site inspection. Plaintiff

sought two additional inspections. Upon review of the motion and the documents in support and

opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel and good cause appearing

therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff is entitled to perform one additional wet season inspection as described

in the parties’ joint stipulation filed December 12, 2005. After the additional inspection is

performed, if either party believes a third inspection is necessary, the two examining experts

conducting the on-site inspections will confer. If the two experts conclude a third inspection is

Case 2:05-cv-00952-WBS -JFM Document 14 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

necessary, a third inspection shall be conducted. However, if the two experts dispute whether

such a third inspection is necessary, each expert shall file a statement, not to exceed two pages,

explaining his or her position. The court will then decide expeditiously whether a third

inspection shall occur. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 4, 2005 motion to compel further site inspections is

partially granted. Plaintiff may perform one additional wet season site inspection. If a further

site inspection is desired by either party, the parties shall follow the procedure outlined above;

and

2. The parties’ motions for expenses and for sanctions are denied.

DATED: December 20, 2005.

001;calsport.oah

Case 2:05-cv-00952-WBS -JFM Document 14 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2