Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01714/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01714-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Environmental Chemical Solutions
Plaintiff
Edward J. Grubbs
Plaintiff
International Chemical Systems, Inc.
Plaintiff
David J. Irey
Defendant

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

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:06-CV-01714-RRB-GGH

JOSEPH J. ARMAO (Bar No. 129577) 

MATTHEW K. NARENSKY (Bar No. 215604) 

E-MAIL: Joseph.Armao@Hellerehrman.com 

HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

333 Bush Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104-2878 

Telephone: +1.415.772.6000 

Facsimile: +1.415.772.6268 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

EDWARD J. GRUBBS; INTERNATIONAL 

CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, INC., DBA 

ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDWARD J. GRUBBS; INTERNATIONAL 

CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, INC., DBA 

ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL 

SOLUTIONS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DAVID J. IREY, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND 

DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 2:06-CV-01714-RRB-GGH 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY 

SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER 

The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline 

Trial Date: 5/19/2008 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01714-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 10/22/07 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

1 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:06-CV-01714-RRB-GGH

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

Plaintiffs, Edward J. Grubbs and International Chemical Systems, Inc., dba 

Environmental Chemical Solutions, Inc., and Defendant, David J. Irey, Stipulate as follows: 

1. In several conferences over the last few weeks, the parties have determined 

that a significant legal dispute exists as to the discovery of documents and information 

central to the claims and issues presented in this case. Specifically, Defendant contends that 

he is not obligated to produce most of the information and documents requested by 

Plaintiffs in this action on the ground that this discovery relates to an ongoing District 

Attorney investigation. Plaintiffs disagree with Defendant’s position, and believe that there 

is no legal basis for withholding this discovery. Accordingly, Defendant has indicated he 

intends to file a motion for protective order. 

2. Counsel for the parties have met and conferred regarding the timing of this 

motion for protective order, and in light of previously scheduled commitments, including 

scheduled trial dates, the parties have agreed to a short delay of 3 months before resolving 

this threshold discovery matter. The parties have further agreed that Defendant shall file his 

motion for protective order in early January of 2008, to be heard on a date convenient to 

Magistrate Judge Hollows sometime on or before January 24, 2008. To accommodate this 

schedule, the parties have also agreed to extend the dates set forth in the current Scheduling 

Order by 3 months. 

3. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court approve of this stipulation and 

amend the Scheduling Order as proposed in the attached [Proposed] Order. 

Dated: October 19, 2007 HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

By: /s/ Joseph J. Armao 

Joseph J. Armao 

Matthew K. Narensky 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01714-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 10/22/07 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

2 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:06-CV-01714-RRB-GGH

Dated: October 19, 2007 COTA DUNCAN & COLE 

By: /s/ Derek P. Cole 

Dennis M. Cota 

Derek P. Cole 

Scott E. Huber 

Attorneys for Defendant David J. Irey 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01714-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 10/22/07 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

3 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 2:06-CV-01714-RRB-GGH

ORDER 

In light of the parties’ stipulations, the Court modifies the Scheduling Order issued 

on July 30, 2007, as follows: 

1. The parties shall complete their non-expert discovery by March 14, 2008; 

2. The parties shall provide their expert witness disclosures, if any, by April 16, 

2008, any rebuttal disclosures by May 9, 2008, and shall conclude all expert witness 

depositions by June 6, 2008; 

3. Hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall be reset to May 

21, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Should the Plaintiffs file a motion for summary judgment, they shall 

do so by such date as would allow a hearing on that motion the same day set forth in this 

paragraph for Defendant’s motion; 

4. Trial shall be reset to commence on August 18, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.; 

5. The pre-trial conference in this matter shall occur on July 2, 2008 at 2:00 

p.m.; and 

6. All other deadlines (e.g., for joint pre-trial statement, pre-trial disclosures, 

etc.) shall be as set forth in the Local Rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 22, 2007 /s/ Ralph R. Beistline_____________________

Judge of the Eastern District Court of California 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01714-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 10/22/07 Page 4 of 4