Opinion
Civil No. 3:10-CV-00121-RS
10-13-2011
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY. Defendant.
Bradley S. Rochlen Schiff Hardin LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PG&E Christopher Sproul Environmental Advocates ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Christopher Sproul (State Bar No. 126398)
Jodene Isaacs (State Bar No. 226895)
Brian Orion (State Bar No. 239460)
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES
5135 Anza Street
San Francisco, California 94121
Telephone: (415) 533-3376, (510) 847-3467
Facsimile: (415) 358-5695
Email: csproul@enviroadvocates.com
Email: jisaacs@enviroadvocates.com
E-mail: borion@enviroadvocates.com
William Verick (State Bar No. 140972)
Klamath Environmental Law Center
Fredric Evenson (State Bar No. 198059)
Law Offices of Fredric Evenson
424 First Street
Eureka, California 95501
Telephone: (707) 268-8900
Facsimile: (707) 268-8901
Email: wverick@igc.org, ecorights@earthlink.net
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING CASE
MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE
In accord with the Court's directive at the October 6, 2011 case management conference and Civil Minute Order (Oct. 6, 2011) (Docket Doc. No. 176), Ecological Rights Foundation ("ERF") and Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E") stipulate to and jointly propose the following case management schedule for managing the next phases of litigation (which shall be limited to adjudicating liability and remedy for the four PG&E facilities located at: (a) 24300 Clawiter Road, Hayward, California; (b) 4801 Oakport Street, Oakland, California; (c) 2555 Myrtle Avenue, Eureka, California; and (d) 1099 West 14th Street, Eureka, California ("the Facilities"):
--October 27, 2011: Cross motions for summary judgment on standing due.
--November 10, 2011: Oppositions to cross motions for summary judgment on standing due.
--November 25, 2011: Replies in support of cross motions for summary judgment on standing due.
--December 8, 2011, 10 A.M.: Hearing on cross motions for summary judgment on standing.
--January 19, 2012: Deadline for ERF to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including expert reports) from any experts that it will use to support its motion for summary judgment concerning liability for ERF's Clean Water Act ("CWA") claims.
--February 16, 2012: Deadline for PG&E to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including expert reports and rebuttal expert reports) from any experts that it will use to support its cross motion for summary judgment concerning liability for ERF's CWA claims.
--March 8, 2012: Deadline for ERF to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including expert reports) from any rebuttal experts that it will use to respond to PG&E's CWA liability experts.
--April 26, 2012: Cutoff to complete discovery concerning any expert disclosures of experts or personnel who assisted the parties' CWA experts or were relied upon by these experts (including but not limited to people who assisted in gathering or analyzing samples or provided information to the experts concerning whether storm water runoff from the Facilities reaches waters of the United States).
--June 14, 2012: Cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF's CWA claims due.
--July 26, 2012: Oppositions to cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF's CWA claims and evidentiary motions related to cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF's CWA claims due.
August 16, 2012: Replies in support of cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF's CWA claims and oppositions to evidentiary motions related to cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF's CWA claims due.
September 6, 2012: Replies in support of evidentiary motions related to cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF's CWA claims due.
--September 20, 2012, 10 A.M.: hearing on cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF's CWA claims.
For a subsequent case schedule on ERF's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") claim and on remedy, the parties jointly propose a schedule tied to the Court's issuance of a ruling on the parties cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF's CWA claims ("CWA Claims Ruling") as follows:
--10 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Deadline for ERF to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including expert reports) from any experts that it will use to support its motion for summary judgment or trial claims concerning ERF's RCRA claim and remedy for the RCRA and CWA claims ("Remaining Claims").
--16 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Deadline for PG&E to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including expert reports and rebuttal expert reports) from any experts that it will use to support its cross motion for summary judgment or trial claims concerning the Remaining Claims.
--20 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Deadline for ERF to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including expert reports) from any rebuttal experts that it will use to respond to PG&E's Remaining Claims experts.
--30 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Cutoff to complete discovery concerning any expert disclosures or experts or personnel who assisted the parties' related to the Remaining Claims or were relied upon by these experts.
--39 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Cross motions for summary judgment on the Remaining Claims due.
--45 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Oppositions to cross motions for summary judgment on the Remaining Claims and evidentiary motions related to cross motions for summary judgment on the Remaining Claims due.
--49 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: Replies in support of cross motions for summary judgment on the Remaining Claims and oppositions to evidentiary motions related to cross motions for summary judgment on the Remaining Claims due.
--52 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling: replies in support of evidentiary motions related to cross motions for summary judgment on the Remaining Claims due.
--55 weeks after the CWA Claims Ruling, 10 A.M.: hearing on cross motions for summary judgment on the Remaining Claims.
Bradley S. Rochlen
Schiff Hardin LLP
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
PG&E
Christopher Sproul
Environmental Advocates
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS
FOUNDATION
-PROPOSED ORDER
Having considered the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS the Stipulation and orders that the case shall proceed on the above-referenced schedule. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge