STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING EVIDENCE RELATED TO AMERIPRIDE'S PRIOR SETTLEMENTS

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff AmeriPride Services Inc. ("AmeriPride") and Defendant Texas Eastern Overseas, Inc. ("TEO"), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows with respect to evidence that resulted in AmeriPride's settlements with Huhtamaki Foodservice, Inc. ("Huhtamaki") and California-American Water Company ("Cal-Am"):

RECITALS

1. On or about July 2005, AmeriPride and Cal-Am entered into a settlement agreement to settle claims from the action known as California-American Water Company v. AmeriPride Services, Inc., Case No. 2:02-cv-01479-LKK-JFM.1 The $2 million AmeriPride paid Cal-Am settled "all claims Cal-Am Water Co. had against AmeriPride." Dkt. 864.

2. On February 12, 2007, AmeriPride and Huhtamaki entered into a settlement agreement to settle claims from the consolidated action known as AmeriPride Services, Inc. v. Valley Industrial Services, Inc., Case No. 2:00-cv-00113-MCE-EFB, consolidated with Huhtamaki Foodservice, Inc. v. AmeriPride Services, Inc., Case No. 2:04-cv-01494-LKK-JFM. The $8.25 million AmeriPride paid Huhtamaki settled "all claims Huhtamaki had against AmeriPride." Dkt. 864.

3. Following the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 988), TEO served discovery requests and notices of deposition on AmeriPride, Huhtamaki and Cal-Am seeking discovery related to the settlement negotiations that resulted in the final settlement agreements.

4. TEO asserts that the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in this matter requires that AmeriPride prove what portion of the settlements were reimbursement for the CERCLA claims asserted by Huhtamaki or Cal-Am and that the discovery discussed herein is relevant thereto. AmeriPride disputes TEO's position and this Stipulation shall not be interpreted as AmeriPride's agreement with any legal or factual position held by TEO.

5. AmeriPride, Huhtamaki and Cal-Am objected to TEO's settlement related discovery because it sought evidence of settlement negotiations, including mediation communications.

6. To avoid motion practice related to this discovery dispute and to streamline the presentation of evidence, TEO and AmeriPride agree that for all purposes in this Action, other than what is expressly stated in the final settlement agreements and in the Stipulation And Order Concerning Costs Incurred By AmeriPride Services Inc. filed on January 9, 2012 (Dkt. 864), neither party shall seek to admit evidence related to the terms or meaning of the final settlement agreements, or related to AmeriPride, Huhtamaki and Cal-Am's (and their respective counsel's) intent in entering into the final settlement agreements.

STIPULATION

The Parties, through their respective counsel of record, stipulate as follows:

1. For all purposes in this Action, other than what is expressly stated in the final settlement agreements and in the Stipulation And Order Concerning Costs Incurred By AmeriPride Services Inc. filed on January 9, 2012 (Dkt. 864), neither party shall seek to admit evidence related to the terms or meaning of the written Settlement Agreements, or related to AmeriPride, Huhtamaki and Cal-Am's (and their respective counsel's) intent in entering into the final settlement agreements.

2. The Parties are not precluded from submitting evidence of the claims that were resolved by the final settlement agreements with Cal-Am and Huhtamaki.

3. AmeriPride, Huhtamaki and Cal-Am are not required to respond to any TEO discovery requests relating to the settlement negotiations that resulted in the final settlement agreements.

4. Neither party shall seek to depose the persons who participated in negotiating the settlement agreements, including the attorneys for AmeriPride, Huhtamaki or Cal-Am. This shall not preclude either party from serving discovery related to documents that are otherwise relevant and in the possession of said attorneys.

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, other than what is expressly stated in the final settlement agreements and in the Stipulation And Order Concerning Costs Incurred By AmeriPride Services Inc. filed on January 9, 2012 (Dkt. 864), neither party shall seek to admit evidence related to the terms or meaning of the written Settlement Agreements, or related to AmeriPride, Huhtamaki and Cal-Am's (and their respective counsel's) intent in entering into the final settlement agreements. The Parties are not precluded from submitting evidence of the claims that were resolved by the final settlement agreements with Cal-Am and Huhtamaki. Neither party shall seek to depose the persons who participated in negotiating the settlement agreements, including the attorneys for AmeriPride, Huhtamaki or Cal-Am. This shall not preclude either party from serving discovery related to documents that are otherwise relevant and in the possession of said attorneys

IT IS SO ORDERED.