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.

Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

December 15, 2011

ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

*E-Filed 12/15/11*

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT

WHEREAS, on October 27, 2011, Plaintiff Ecological Rights Foundation ("ERF") filed Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Standing (Docket No. 179). The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for December 8, 2011.

WHEREAS, on October 27, 2011, Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") filed Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on ERF's Standing (Docket No. 181)The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for December 8, 2011. WHEREAS, the Motion to Dismiss was fully briefed by the parties. On December 2, 2011, the Court ordered the hearing on the cross motions for summary judgment to be rescheduled to December 29, 2011.

WHEREAS, on December 5, 2011, the parties and the Court agreed to move the hearing on the cross motions for summary judgment to January 19, 2011 to accommodate scheduling conflicts. WHEREAS, on October 13, 2011, the Court approved the parties agreed upon bifurcated approach to case management whereby the issue of Plaintiff's standing would first be subject to summary judgment, after which cross motions for summary judgment related to Plaintiff's Clean Water Act ("CWA") claim would be brought, followed by summary judgment motions related to Plaintiff's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") claims. WHEREAS, according to the Court Order, the parties are scheduled to begin expert discovery related to the four service centers. Plaintiff is required to disclose expert testimony and reports on January 19, 2011. Defendants are required to disclose expert testimony and reports on February 26, 2012, and all expert discovery is scheduled to be completed by April 26, 2012.

WHEREAS, because of the pending cross motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff's standing, the parties are not currently clear on which counts will or will not require expert testimony. The parties believe judicial economy will best be served by finalizing the issue of Plaintiff's standing to bring the CWA and RCRA claims before attempting to complete proceeding with expert discovery so that the parties do not spend time and resources pursing expert discovery of claims that are no longer in the Complaint.

WHEREAS, the parties agree that staying rescheduling the deadlines to complete expert discovery and cross motions for summary judgment on the CWA claims at this time will allow the Court to rule on the Motions for Summary Judgment and then allow the parties to proceed in a more orderly fashion with expert discovery.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby stipulate, by and through counsel, that the case management schedule be adjusted as follows:

--March 1, 2012: Deadline for ERF to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including expert reports) from 8 any experts that it will use to support its motion for summary judgment concerning liability for ERF's 9 Clean Water Act ("CWA") claims.

-- April 5, 2012: Deadline for PG&E to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including expert reports and 11 rebuttal expert reports) from any experts that it will use to support its cross motion for summary 12 judgment concerning liability for ERF's CWA claims.

--April 26, 2012: Deadline for ERF to provide Rule 26 expert disclosures (including expert reports) from 14 any rebuttal experts that it will use to respond to PG&E's CWA liability experts. 15 --June 14, 2012: Cutoff to complete discovery concerning any expert disclosures of experts or personnel 16 who assisted the parties' CWA experts or were relied upon by these experts (including but not limited to 17 people who assisted in gathering or analyzing samples or provided information to the experts concerning 18 whether storm water runoff from the Facilities reaches waters of the United States).

--August 2, 2012: Cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF's CWA claims due. --September 13, 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.

--October 4, 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. --October 25, 2012: Replies in support of evidentiary motions related to cross motions for summary judgment on liability related to ERF's CWA claims due.

--November 8, 2012, 10 A.M.: hearing on cross motions for summary judgment on liability ...


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.