Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

C & C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Company, 1:14-cv-01889 JLT. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20161013742 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2016
Summary: JOINT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE OCTOBER 18, 2016 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs C & C PROPERTIES, INC., JEC PANAMA, LLC, and WINGS WAY, LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs"), on the one hand, and defendants SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY ("Shell") and ALON USA PARAMOUNT PETROLEUM CORPORATION ("Alon"), on the other hand, jointly and respectfully request the October 18, 2016 Settlement Conference be continued 45 days. Good cause exists for the requested cont
More

JOINT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE OCTOBER 18, 2016 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs C & C PROPERTIES, INC., JEC PANAMA, LLC, and WINGS WAY, LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs"), on the one hand, and defendants SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY ("Shell") and ALON USA PARAMOUNT PETROLEUM CORPORATION ("Alon"), on the other hand, jointly and respectfully request the October 18, 2016 Settlement Conference be continued 45 days. Good cause exists for the requested continuance, as explained below.

1. This litigation was initiated on November 25, 2014. It involves claims arising from the defendants' alleged operation of three pipelines that traversed the south frontage of Plaintiffs' 138-acre parcel in Bakersfield, California. More specifically, Plaintiffs alleged defendants committed trespass by refusing to remove their pipelines from the property following Plaintiffs' demand and continuing to operate the pipelines for commercial purposes without right.

2. On or about March 1, 2016, Plaintiffs propounded requests for production of documents on each defendant. The requests sought, among other documents, defendants' records regarding the operation of the three pipelines traversing the Plaintiffs' property. The information contained in the requested documents is relevant to damages under Civil Code § 3334.

3. Defendants did not turn over the requested financial records and other documents. Defendants contend the documents contain confidential information and/or trade secrets, and because pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(d)(1), written discovery could not yet be propounded.

4. On June 21, 2016, the Parties appeared at a Scheduling Conference before United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Thomas Vogele, Esq. appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; Kevin A. Day, Esq. appeared on behalf of defendants.

5. At the Scheduling Conference, the document requests were discussed. At that time, the Parties agreed to execute a stipulated protective order protecting against dissemination of confidential information and trade secrets to the public. To that end Judge Thurston ordered Mr. Day to draft and provide a proposed protective order to Mr. Vogele by July 1, 2016. Judge Thurston also ordered the parties to file an executed protective order by July 29, 2016. Mainly due to maters of third-party confidentiality as to whether information related to the use of the common-carrier pipeline could be disclosed (pursuant to confidentiality demanded by the California Public Utilities Commission) the protective order was agreed to and executed on October 7, 2016.

6. Also at the Scheduling Conference, Judge Thurston ordered Plaintiffs to submit a settlement demand prior to the settlement conference. Plaintiffs contend they cannot engage in meaningful settlement discussions until they receive the requested discovery from Defendants to reasonably estimate the amount of damages. That information is contained in the documents produced by Defendants in October 2016.

7. Additionally, Defendants contend they are also not in position to engage in meaningful settlement discussions. Plaintiffs recently settled separate arbitration proceedings with Chevron U.S.A. Inc. related to the non-disclosure of certain information about the Subject Property. Defendants argue said settlement information is both relevant and key to Defendants' analysis of the settlement posture of the case. However, Defendants have not been provided with the terms of the settlement with Chevron, which cannot be voluntarily be produced due to confidentiality provisions therein. Without the requested information, Defendants represent they are not in position to begin settlement discussions on October 18, 2016.

For the foregoing reasons, the parties, and each of them, agree that good cause exists to continue the October 18, 2016 Settlement Conference 45 days. By that time, the parties expect a protective order will be in place, discovery will be further along and all essential individuals will be able to participate in the continued settlement conference with the meaningful information necessary to potentially settle this matter. As such, the settlement procedures ordered by Judge Thurston can be meaningfully fulfilled by the parties.

ORDER

Finding good cause to exist, the Court hereby continues the Settlement Conference from October 18, 2016 to December 13, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer