Filed: Dec. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY, DISCLOSURE, TRIAL AND OTHER DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. THE DAVIS CENTER, LLC; EMILY STOVER, Individually and as Trustee of the STOVER FAMILY TRUST and as Personal Representative for Melvin Stover (Deceased); and RICHARD ALBERT STINCHFIELD, Individually and as Trustee of the ROBERT S. STINCHFIELD SEPARATE REAL PROPERTY TRUST and as Trustee of the BARBARA ELLEN STINCHFI
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY, DISCLOSURE, TRIAL AND OTHER DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. THE DAVIS CENTER, LLC; EMILY STOVER, Individually and as Trustee of the STOVER FAMILY TRUST and as Personal Representative for Melvin Stover (Deceased); and RICHARD ALBERT STINCHFIELD, Individually and as Trustee of the ROBERT S. STINCHFIELD SEPARATE REAL PROPERTY TRUST and as Trustee of the BARBARA ELLEN STINCHFIE..
More
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY, DISCLOSURE, TRIAL AND OTHER DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
THE DAVIS CENTER, LLC; EMILY STOVER, Individually and as Trustee of the STOVER FAMILY TRUST and as Personal Representative for Melvin Stover (Deceased); and RICHARD ALBERT STINCHFIELD, Individually and as Trustee of the ROBERT S. STINCHFIELD SEPARATE REAL PROPERTY TRUST and as Trustee of the BARBARA ELLEN STINCHFIELD TESTAMENTARY TRUST (collectively the "Davis Center"); Potter Taylor & Company, and it predecessors-in-interest: Potter, Long, Adams & Taylor, Ltd.; Davis Center; Potter-Taylor, Inc.; and Potter Taylor & Scurfield, Inc.; Robert D. Russell (Deceased) and Irene Russell; the City of Davis; Marie L. Whitcombe (Deceased); and Charles H. Lewis and Jane W. Lewis (Deceased) (collectively the "Participating Parties") are parties to the above-captioned matter. The Davis Center previously moved to amend the scheduling order (Docket No. 447) and the Participating Parties stipulated to extend the deadlines to disclose experts (Docket No. 458) in order to provide the Davis Center with sufficient time to complete an investigative study to determine the efficacy of a potential site remedy. The Court entered Orders granting the Motion (Docket No. 457) and approving the Stipulation (Docket No. 460). The Participating Parties entered into a further stipulation to amend the scheduling order to allow time to produce and compile data associated with the investigative study (Docket No. 472). The Court entered an Order approving the Stipulation (Docket No. 474). The Participating Parties entered into a further stipulation to amend the scheduling order to allow time to produce and compile additional data associated with the site investigation (Docket No. 475). The Court entered an Order approving the Stipulation (Docket No. 477).
The field portion of the site investigation necessary to determine an appropriate remedy has been completed, and the data from that study has been compiled and analyzed. The Davis Center presented the results of the investigation to Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board") staff and received preliminary approval for its proposed remedial approach for the site at issue. Some of the Participating Parties are working together to develop a cost estimate and work plan for the proposed remediation. The work plan will need to be approved by the Regional Board, which could take several months. Also, the Participating Parties are discussing possible mediation after the work plan has been approved, in an effort to resolve the case.
Due to upcoming expert disclosure and discovery deadlines, proceeding toward trial on the current schedule would unnecessarily waste the parties' resources on litigation instead of allowing the parties to focus their resources on coordinating with one another to prepare a work plan, obtain Regional Board approval, and participate in settlement negotiations. Therefore, the Participating Parties appearing in the above-entitled action hereby stipulate to extend the following deadlines eight months:
1. Disclosure of experts and production of reports: no later than September 14, 2015;
2. Rebuttal experts and production of rebuttal expert reports: no later than November 10, 2015;
3. Discovery deadlines: no later than March 21, 2016;
4. Motion deadline: no later than May 23, 2016;
5. Final pretrial conference on July 20, 2016 or such time that is convenient for the Court;
6. Jury Trial on September 22, 2016, or such time that is convenient for the Court.
SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
For good cause and pursuant to the above stipulation of the Participating Parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Disclosure of experts and production of reports must occur no later than September 14, 2015;
2. Rebuttal experts and production of rebuttal expert reports must occur no later than November 10, 2015;
3. All discovery must be completed no later than March 21, 2016;
4. All motions to be filed no later than May 23, 2016;
5. Final pretrial conference is reset to July 18, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
6. Jury trial is set for September 20, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
