From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ameripride Services Inc. v. Valley Industrial Services, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 25, 2015
2:00-cv-00113-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2015)

Opinion

          PHILIP C. HUNSUCKER BRIAN L. ZAGON MARC SHAPP HUNSUCKER GOODSTEIN PC Lafayette, CA LEE N. SMITH PERKINS, MANN & EVERETT, APC HUNSUCKER GOODSTEIN PC Fresno, CA Attorneys for Plaintiff AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC.

          FRED M. BLUM, ESQ. ERIN K. POPPLER, ESQ. VIVY D. DANG, ESQ. BASSI, EDLIN, HUIE & BLUM LLP San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Defendant TEXAS EASTERN OVERSEAS, INC.

          RONALD S. BUSHNER SHANA INSPEKTOR WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP San Francisco, California Attorneys for Defendant TEXAS EASTERN OVERSEAS, INC.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF THIRD PARTY CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AFTER THE NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

         Plaintiff AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC. ("AmeriPride") and Defendant TEXAS EASTERN OVERSEAS, INC. ("TEO"), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate with respect to the deposition of third-party California-American Water Company ("Cal-Am"), as follows:

         RECITALS

         1. Pursuant to the July 20, 2015 Pretrial Scheduling Order, all discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, must be completed by September 30, 2015. Dkt. 988 at 3.

         2. On August 17, 2015, TEO served Cal-Am a Subpoena To Testify At A Deposition In A Civil Action for the deposition of Cal-Am's Person Most Knowledgeable ("PMK") on several subject matters including: settlement negotiations between Cal-Am and AmeriPride, whether response actions taken at the Cal-Am facility were consistent with the requirements of the National Contingency Plan ("NCP"), and whether the costs incurred for those response actions were consistent with the requirements of the NCP.

         3. On September 11, 2015, AmeriPride also served Cal-Am a Subpoena To Testify At A Deposition In A Civil Action for the deposition of its PMK on additional topics. In August, before serving its deposition notice, counsel for AmeriPride had requested from Cal-Am's counsel available dates for the deposition of the Cal-Am PMK. AmeriPride waited to serve its deposition notice until it had available dates for the deposition from counsel for Cal-Am.

         4. Prior to serving the deposition subpoenas, both parties also served separate Subpoenas To Produce Documents on Cal-Am. On August 25, 2015, Cal-Am produced documents responsive to AmeriPride's subpoena and has indicated that it will produce additional documents.

         5. Cal-Am's PMK's deposition is necessary for the issue remanded to this Court to "determine the extent to which AmeriPride reimbursed Cal-Am for necessary response costs incurred consistent with the NCP." AmeriPride Services, Inc. v. Texas Eastern Overseas, Inc., 782 F.3d 479, 492 (9th Cir. 2015).

         6. Cal-Am has agreed to produce Mr. Mark Schubert for the deposition of its PMK. Mr. Schubert resides in San Diego, California.

         7. Mr. Schubert is unavailable for a deposition before September 30, 2015.

         8. Mr. Schubert is available for deposition on October 8 or October 15, 2015, and has agreed to travel to San Francisco to be deposed.

         9. TEO and AmeriPride's counsel have agreed to share the reasonable travel costs Mr. Schubert will incur to attend this deposition.

         10. Good cause exists for this Court to permit the deposition of third-party Cal-Am to be taken fifteen days (15) after the non-expert discovery cut-off date because: (1) the parties were diligent in seeking the deposition of Cal-Am so it could be taken before September 30, 2015; and (2) Cal-Am's designated witness cannot attend a deposition prior to September 30, 2015.

         11. By allowing the deposition of Cal-Am to be taken on October 15, 2015 the Parties are not aware of any issue that would arise related to their compliance with any other deadlines in the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order.

         STIPULATION

         Based on the foregoing, AmeriPride and TEO agree and respectfully request that the Court permit the deposition of third-party Cal-Am to be taken fifteen days (15) after the non-expert discovery cut-off date.

          ORDER

         Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, the Court grants the parties' request to take the deposition of third-party Cal-Am fifteen days (15) after the non-expert discovery cut-off date.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Ameripride Services Inc. v. Valley Industrial Services, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 25, 2015
2:00-cv-00113-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2015)
Case details for

Ameripride Services Inc. v. Valley Industrial Services, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC., Plaintiffs, v. VALLEY INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 25, 2015

Citations

2:00-cv-00113-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2015)