Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01714/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01714-3/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 

{DPC/00002551.}

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

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

WILLIAM S. SCOTT, Bar No. 72581 

SCOTT & NICHOLS 

120 N. Hunter Street 

Stockton, CA 95202 

Telephone: (209) 942-4300 

Facsimile: (209) 942-4450 

DENNIS M. COTA, Bar No. 127992 

DEREK P. COLE, Bar No. 204250 

CAROLYN J. CAFORIO, Bar No. 245479 

COTA DUNCAN & COLE 

2261 Lava Ridge Court 

Roseville, California 95661 

Telephone: (916) 780-9009 

Facsimile: (916) 780-9050 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DAVID J. IREY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 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 

Trial Date: 8/18/2008 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01714-MCE -GGH Document 23 Filed 01/30/08 Page 1 of 4
C

O

T

A

DUN

C

A

N

&

C

OLE

2261 LA

V

A

RID

GE C

OUR

T

R

O

SEVILLE, C

ALIFO

R

NIA 95661

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 

{DPC/00002551.} - 1 - 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 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. On October 22, 2007, following the stipulation of the parties, the Court entered an 

order continuing the trial date (until August 18, 2008), all pre-trial deadlines, and the hearing date 

for the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (to May 21, 2008). The Court had previously 

entered a modified Scheduling Order on July 30, 2007 following a prior stipulation by the parties. 

2. On January 11, 2008, the Defendant filed a Motion to Stay (Docket No. 21), 

seeking a one-year stay of this action, subject to extension by further motion. The Motion to Stay 

was filed in light of the parties’ dispute regarding the Defendant’s obligation to respond to the 

Request for Production (Set One) and Interrogatories (Set One) received from the Plaintiffs, 

copies of which were attached to the Motion to Stay. The Defendant, a Deputy District Attorney 

for San Joaquin County, contends the requested discovery would require him to turn over 

confidential documents that are part of an ongoing and official investigation. The Plaintiffs 

contend the discovery is appropriate, disagree with Defendant's asserted objections to responding 

to this discovery, and believe Defendant's request for a stay of this action lacks merit. 

3. The parties have met and conferred regarding the Motion to Stay and the effect of 

their discovery dispute on the trial date, pre-trial deadlines, and Motion for Summary Judgment. 

To ensure that Plaintiffs and Defendant have adequate time to conduct and complete discovery 

following the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Stay and/or any stay granted, the Parties request 

that all dates and deadlines currently set be vacated, subject to re-establishment following denial 

of the Motion to Stay or expiration of any stay granted. 

4. To ensure that this action can proceed expeditiously following denial of the 

Motion to Stay or expiration of any stay granted, the Parties would agree to (a) hold a conference 

on all pertinent subjects addressed by Local Rule 16-240(a) within 30 days following the denial 

/// 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01714-MCE -GGH Document 23 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 4
C

O

T

A

DUN

C

A

N

&

C

OLE

2261 LA

V

A

RID

GE C

OUR

T

R

O

SEVILLE, C

ALIFO

R

NIA 95661

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 

{DPC/00002551.} - 2 - 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

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

or expiration; and (b) submit a joint report to the Court per Local Rule 16-240(b) within 14 days 

of their conference. Thereafter, the Court could enter a new Scheduling Order with all trial dates 

and deadlines. 

Dated: January 24, 2008 HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

By: /s/ Matthew K. Naransky 

Joseph J. Armao 

Matthew K. Naransky 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Edward J. Grubbs and 

Environmental Chemical Solutions 

Dated: January 24, 2008 COTA DUNCAN & COLE 

By: /s/ Derek P. Cole 

Dennis M. Cota 

Derek P. Cole 

Carolyn J. Caforio 

Attorneys for Defendant David J. Irey 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01714-MCE -GGH Document 23 Filed 01/30/08 Page 3 of 4
C

O

T

A

DUN

C

A

N

&

C

OLE

2261 LA

V

A

RID

GE C

OUR

T

R

O

SEVILLE, C

ALIFO

R

NIA 95661

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 

{DPC/00002551.} - 3 - 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

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

ORDER

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

on October 22, 2007, as follows: 

1. All dates and deadlines previously established in the Scheduling Order, including 

the trial date, pre-trial deadlines, and hearing on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

are vacated pending the Court’s resolution of the Defendant’s Motion to Stay; 

2. Within 30 days following the Court’s (a) denial of the Defendant’s Motion to Stay 

(Docket Number 21), or (b) expiration of any stay the Court grants, the parties shall meet and 

confer per Local Rule 16-240(a) on all pertinent subjects; and 

3. Within 14 days of the parties’ conference, the parties shall jointly submit a report 

to the Court per Local Rule 16-240(b), upon receipt of which the Court shall enter a new 

Scheduling Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 30, 2008 

/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 23 Filed 01/30/08 Page 4 of 4