Filed: Oct. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2017
Summary: THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . The parties jointly requested (ECF No. 39) to amend dates in the pretrial scheduling order (ECF No. 18). The City also agreed not to oppose any motion by the United States to file an Amended Answer to include a counterclaim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. 9613(f), and based upon this agreement, the parties filed a stipulation to allo
Summary: THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . The parties jointly requested (ECF No. 39) to amend dates in the pretrial scheduling order (ECF No. 18). The City also agreed not to oppose any motion by the United States to file an Amended Answer to include a counterclaim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. 9613(f), and based upon this agreement, the parties filed a stipulation to allow..
More
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
The parties jointly requested (ECF No. 39) to amend dates in the pretrial scheduling order (ECF No. 18). The City also agreed not to oppose any motion by the United States to file an Amended Answer to include a counterclaim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f), and based upon this agreement, the parties filed a stipulation to allow for the United States to file an Amended Answer to include such a counterclaim under CERCLA. (ECF No. 39).
The parties have now filed a stipulation requesting clarification of the Second Amendment to the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 42), to determine whether defendants are authorized to file an Amended Answer to include a counterclaim under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f). The parties also filed the stipulation to alert the court to two apparent typos in the Second Amendment to the Scheduling Order, and to request clarification from the court as to these two typos.
Good cause appearing, the court GRANTS the United States' request to file an Amended Answer to include a counterclaim under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f). Section II of the scheduling order is hereby amended as follows:
Section II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS
The United States may file an Amended Answer to include a counterclaim under CERCLA Section 113, 42 U.S.C. § 9613.
Further, good cause appearing, the court GRANTS the parties' request to amend dates in the pretrial scheduling order, as follows, but vacates the final three dates to be reset as needed after ruling on any dispositive motions or passage of the dispositive motion cutoff without the filing of such motions:
Description Existing Date New Date
Discovery Cutoff October 6, 2017 February 9, 2018
Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures November 14, 2017 March 14, 2018
Defendants' Expert Disclosures January 12, 2018 May 14, 2018
Supplemental Expert Disclosures February 9, 2018 June 11, 2018
Completion of Expert Discovery March 14, 2018 July 13, 2018
Hearing on Dispositive Motions April 30, 2018 August 24, 2018
Final Pretrial Conference August 24, 2018 Vacated to be reset as
necessary
Trial Briefs Due October 8, 2018 Vacated to be reset as
necessary
Trial October 22, 2018 Vacated to be reset as
necessary
This amendment does not alter any other portions of the initial scheduling order (ECF No. 18).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
