Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00594/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00594-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alco Iron & Metal Company
Defendant
Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC
Plaintiff
Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.
Plaintiff

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALCO IRON & METAL COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00594-KES-CDB

ORDER ON STIPULATION AMENDING 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 23)

ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL 

CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES

Background

On March 13, 2024, Plaintiffs Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. (“Safety-Kleen”) and Clean 

Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC (“Clean Harbors”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action with 

the filing of a complaint against Defendant Alco Iron & Metal Company (“Defendant) in the 

Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, entitled Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. and 

Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC v. Alco Iron & Metal Company, Case No. BCV-24-100887. 

(Doc. 1). Defendant removed the action to this Court on May 16, 2024. (Id.). On June 27, 2024, 

Defendant filed its answer. (Doc. 15).

On August 18, 2024, the Court convened with the parties for scheduling conference and 

issued the operative scheduling order setting forth all case management dates including discovery 

deadlines (fact discovery 2/14/2025; expert 4/28/2025) and motion filing deadlines (nonCase 1:24-cv-00594-KES-CDB Document 24 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 4
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

2

dispositive motions filed by 5/9/2025; dispositive motions filed by 7/11/2025).

Discussion

Pending before the Court is the parties’ renewed stipulated request to amend the scheduling 

order and extend discovery and motion deadlines, filed on January 7, 2025. (Doc. 23). Therein, 

the parties represent that on September 11, 2024, the parties exchanged initial disclosure 

statements and because they planned to mediate the case, agreed to defer production of the 

documents identified in the initial disclosures. (Id. ¶ 7). The parties represent that based on their 

ongoing efforts to resolve this matter, the parties agreed to a private mediation for October 7, 2024, 

with mediator Tim Gallagher, and also agreed to hold off the expense of conducting discovery 

until after the mediation concluded. (Id. ¶ 8). The parties represent that as part of the mediation 

process, the parties informally produced some documents for use in mediation, but the parties have 

yet to formally produce any documents in discovery so far. (Id. ¶ 9). The parties represent they 

agreed to a second mediation session before the mediator and are actively seeking an available 

date on Gallagher’s schedule. (Id. ¶ 10).

The parties represent that on December 20, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendant with three 

sets of written discovery requests and noticed eight depositions for dates between January 27, 

2025, and February 6, 2025. (Id. ¶ 11). The parties represent that on January 3, 2025, Defendant 

served objections to Plaintiff’s eight deposition notices. (Id. ¶ 12). The parties represent that 

because the matter has not resolved despite extensive mediation efforts, and because the parties 

plan on a second mediation session, the parties now find it is necessary to conduct discovery but 

also find that the discovery and motion deadlines are fast approaching. (Id. ¶ 13). The parties 

represent that its genuine efforts to resolve this case without incurring substantial sums on 

discovery matters make an extension of the discovery and motion deadlines as requested essential 

to the ongoing efforts to resolve this case. (Id. ¶ 14). The parties thus propose to modify the 

scheduling order to extend each of the discovery and motion dates by 12 weeks to allow the parties 

additional time for discovery and motions. (Id. ¶ 15). The parties represent the pretrial conference 

would remain scheduled for January 5, 2026, and the trial date for March 3, 2026, as currently set 

in the scheduling order. (Id. ¶ 16). The parties support the stipulated request with the declaration 

Case 1:24-cv-00594-KES-CDB Document 24 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 4
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

of counsel for Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 17; see Doc. 23-1). Counsel for Plaintiffs declares that good cause 

exists for extending the discovery and motion deadlines as requested because though the matter 

has not resolved despite the parties’ efforts, the parties believe resolution is achievable now that 

additional information has been exchanged and in light of the second mediation being scheduled. 

(Doc. 23-1 ¶ 17). Counsel declares that the parties agree that the short extension is essential to 

resolving this matter as the parties continue their good faith mediation efforts. (Id.). Counsel 

declares the parties’ genuine efforts to resolve this case without incurring substantial sums on 

discovery establish good cause for the requested extension that is essential to the ongoing efforts 

to resolve this case. (Id. ¶ 18). 

The Court finds good cause exists to extend case management dates.

However, the undersigned clarifies for the parties any misunderstanding they may have 

regarding the Court’s earlier admonition that the case management dates “are considered to be 

firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good cause.” (Doc. 18 at 7). While the Court 

acknowledges the benefits the parties enjoy from unilaterally “agree[ing] to hold off the expense 

of conducting discovery until after the mediation concluded” (Doc. 23 ¶ 8), delaying more than 

four months after discovery opens to serve initial discovery demands does not demonstrate due 

diligence. The Court directs the parties to complete all discovery and pretrial motion filings by 

the modified dates set forth herein. Any parallel efforts the parties undertake to settle their disputes 

must be accomplished in tandem with meeting these modified discovery and motion filing 

deadlines.

In short, the Court will not find good cause for further modifications of the case 

management deadlines on the grounds that the parties prioritized settlement negotiations over 

discovery.

Additionally, the parties unrealistically ask to continue the hearing on dispositive motions 

to a date approximately six weeks prior to the pretrial conference – which they do not seek to

continue. See (Doc. 23 at ¶ 16). This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about the 

nature of the judicial resource emergency this Court has operated under for several years and which 

the undersigned addressed during the scheduling conference. See (Doc. 3-3). As such, the pretrial 

Case 1:24-cv-00594-KES-CDB Document 24 Filed 01/10/25 Page 3 of 4
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

4

conference and trial dates will be vacated.

Conclusion and Order

In light of the parties’ representations in their stipulation (Doc. 23), and for good cause 

shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduling order is amended as follows: 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the pretrial conference and trial dates are VACATED.

All other case management dates and provisions of the scheduling order (Doc. 18) remain

unchanged and in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Non-expert discovery May 9, 2025

Expert disclosures May 23, 2025

Rebuttal disclosures

June 20, 2025

Expert discovery cut-off July 21, 2025

Non-dispositive motion filing August 1, 2025

Non-dispositive motion hearing September 5, 2025

Dispositive motion filing October 3, 2025

Dispositive motion hearing November 17, 2025

Case 1:24-cv-00594-KES-CDB Document 24 Filed 01/10/25 Page 4 of 4