STIPULATION TO STAY ACTIONS; AND ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Rio Linda Elverta Community Water District and Sacramento Suburban Water District (together, "Plaintiffs") and Defendants the United States of America, Elementis Chromium Incorporated, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Honeywell International, Inc., BASF Corporation, PPG Industries, Inc. sued as PPG Incorporated, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Univar Inc., Univar USA, Inc., Luxfer Holdings PLC, Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, and The Dow Chemical Company, in the above-captioned related matters, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the following:

I. Recitals

1. Plaintiffs Rio Linda Elverta Community Water District and Sacramento Suburban Water District filed actions against the United States of America and the United States Department of the Air Force in the United States Court of Federal Claims on June 23, 2017. The Court of Federal Claims case names and numbers are: Rio Linda Elverta Community Water District vs. The United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00859-VJW; and Sacramento Suburban Water District vs. The United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00860-RHH (together, the "Federal Claims Actions").

2. Plaintiffs subsequently filed these actions in this Court on June 30, 2017 (Rio Linda Community Water District v. United States, et al.) and July 12, 2017 (Sacramento Suburban Water District v. Elementis Chromium Inc., et al.).

3. On September 18 and 25, 2017, Non-Federal Defendants1 filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.

4. On September 20, 2017, based on a stipulation between Plaintiffs and Non-Federal Defendants, this Court entered an Order re Scheduling and Case Management (Docket 34) that, in addition to addressing service issues, established a schedule for motions to be brought by Non-Federal Defendants. That Order set the following schedule:

5. On September 21, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendant United States filed a Stipulation to Stay Plaintiffs' Counts Against the United States of America and Proposed Scheduling Order for Defendant United States of America. On September 25, 2017, this Court entered an Order (Docket 43) based on the stipulation staying this action against the United States "at least for the period of time that may be required for Plaintiffs to obtain a ruling from the United States Court of Federal Claims on Plaintiffs' anticipated motions to stay" the Federal Claims Actions. The Order further requires that the United States will answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' claims against the United States in these actions within 60 days of Plaintiffs' notification that the Federal Claims Actions have been stayed or dismissed, Plaintiffs will respond to any pleading motion filed by the United States within 28 days thereafter, and the United States will file its reply brief within 14 days thereafter.

6. On September 27, 2017 in the Rio Linda Federal Claims Action and on September 28, 2017 in the Sacramento Suburban Federal Claims Action, Plaintiffs filed motions to stay the Federal Claims Actions pending resolution of the instant actions. United States' responses to those motions are due on October 11 and 12, 2017, respectively. Also on September 28, 2017, the United States filed motions to dismiss the Federal Claims Actions under Rule of the Court of Federal Claims 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs' responses to those motions to dismiss are due on October 26, 2017.

7. This Court has set a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in these actions on November 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

8. Counsel for Plaintiffs and certain Non-Federal Defendants met and conferred on September 22, 2017 concerning the scheduling of these actions in light of the Federal Claims Actions, Plaintiffs' motions to stay the Federal Claims Actions, the overlapping issues in these actions and the Federal Claims Actions, and means of litigating the matters efficiently without duplicating issues or needlessly burdening the courts.

9. To reduce the potential for duplication of effort and overlap of proceedings, and to avoid scheduling conflicts, the parties have agreed to the following proposed order.

II. [Proposed] Order Staying Actions Against Non-Federal Defendants And Setting Briefing and Discovery Schedule

1. If the United States Court of Federal Claims enters orders staying or dismissing Plaintiffs' United States Court of Federal Claims lawsuits, then Plaintiffs' counsel will file a notice with the Eastern District of California of the orders within 48 hours, or 72 hours if the orders are issued on a Friday.

2. These actions are hereby stayed against the Non-Federal Defendants until sixty (60) days after Plaintiffs file such notification.

3. The briefing schedule set forth in the Court's September 20, 2017 Order (Docket No. 34) is hereby modified as follows:

4. Discovery is stayed until the Court issues rulings on the Non-Federal Defendants' currently pending Rule 12 motions and any motions to dismiss filed by the United States pursuant to the deadlines entered by the Court on September 25, 2017 for all counts against the United States. Initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be due 45 days after this Court's ruling on all then-pending Rule 12 motions.

5. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for November 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. is hereby vacated. The parties request that a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference be set to coincide with oral argument on Defendants' Rule 12 motions or within 30 days after entry of an order resolving all Rule 12 motions filed by all defendants.

Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), all undersigned counsel have authorized Occidental Chemical Corporation's counsel, R. Morgan Gilhuly, to sign and submit this Stipulation on their behalf.

IT IS SO ORDERED.