Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. City and County of San Francisco

January 16, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, HETCH HETCHY WATER AND POWER, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER DATES

Trial Date: February 16, 2010

Plaintiff, the United States of America and Defendant City and County of San Francisco, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. This stipulation is executed by all parties who have appeared in and are affected by this action.

2. On August 26, 2008, the parties filed a stipulation and order to extend scheduling order dates by 120 -- 130 days (Document 14), which the Court signed on August 29, 2008.

3. On October 30, 2008 the parties filed a second stipulation and order to extend scheduling order dates by 60 days (Document 19), which the Court signed on that same date.

4. At the time the parties filed the second stipulation, the City underestimated the amount of time and effort necessary to comply with plaintiff's numerous and extensive discovery requests.

Since that time, the City and its counsel have made efforts to further comply with the outstanding discovery. The parties have had multiple meet and confer conferences regarding a wide variety of discovery issues, some of which are the subject of plaintiff's pending motion to compel. Because the parties appear to have made substantial progress regarding these discovery matters, they have agreed to extend that hearing from January 16, 2009 to a date on or about March 6, 2009 subject to the Court's calendar (the agreement regarding the motion to compel will be memorialized in a separate stipulation).

5. The City has also agreed to file amended discovery responses and, toward that end, is in the process of obtaining additional responsive documents from the Public Utilities Commission and its subcontractors. Given the large number of discovery requests in dispute, as well as the number and type of documents that are potentially responsive to those requests, the parties will require additional time for discovery, motions, and future settlement discussions. Specifically, plaintiff's experts cannot complete their investigation and analysis without information that has not yet been provided by the defendant. Also, the parties have agreed to return to mediation sometime in 2009.

6. Accordingly, the parties now jointly ask this Court to extend dates set in the Scheduling Conference Order as stated below.

CURRENT DATE NEW DATE REQUESTED

Expert Disclosure: March 20, 2009 July 20, 2009

Supplemental Expert Disclosure: April 17, 2009 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.