Opinion ID: 203878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Esso's Appeal

Text: After losing below, Esso filed with this court an emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction order pending its interlocutory appeal. In their opposition to Esso's Motion to Stay, the plaintiffs contended that the stay was not warranted because the trial on the merits was held at the preliminary injunction hearing. We denied Esso's request for a stay to the extent that it pertained to the completion of a comprehensive site assessment and the completion of a remedial plan. However, we granted the request to the extent the district court order can be read to require defendant to undertake any remedial measures in advance of the preparation of a remedial plan, except as may become necessary to remedy any emergent threat to human health or safety. We also directed the parties to confer and determine whether this appeal should be expedited. After we issued this order, the district court entered the following Notice: Regarding the Order by the Court of Appeals dated March 16, 2009, in Case No. 09-1211, this court states that, consistent with the Court of Appeals' Statement, it was never our intention to require Defendant to undertake any remedial measures in advance of the preparation of a remedial plan, except as may become necessary to remedy any emergent threat to human health or safety. We strongly recommend that the appeal on the preliminary injunction be handled on an expedited basis as suggested by the Court of Appeals. Despite this notice, the district court never amended the preliminary injunction itself. On the parties' motion, this appeal was expedited. Meanwhile, the comprehensive site assessment has been completed and, as of the time of oral argument on May 6, 2009, the parties were awaiting the reports that would reveal the nature and extent of any potential contamination at the site. Aside from the site assessment, however, it appears that discovery in the district court has been stayed pending this appeal. After Esso contacted plaintiffs to schedule a discovery conference pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs responded with an urgent motion to stay all discovery, arguing that discovery was not warranted because the case had already been heard and the relevant documents had been produced in open court at the preliminary injunction hearing.