FMC Corp. v. Vendo Co.

Good Law

196 F. Supp. 2d 1023·2002 WL 741632·32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20642·54 ERC (BNA) 1711·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11488

United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 17, 2002CIV.F-00-5295 OWW LJOCalifornia13,602 words

Opinion

Wanger, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE: BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc.194); THE VENDO COMPANY’S MOTION TO QUASH BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY’S PROPOSED SUBPOENAS OF FMC CORPORATION’S EXPERTS (Doc.199); BNSF’S APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER

Before the court is third-party defendant Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company’s (“BNSF”) motion for summary judgment and the Vendo Company’s motion to quash BNSF’s proposed subpoenas of Plaintiff FMC Corporation’s experts. See Docs.194, 199, filed March 6, 2002. Also before the court is BNSF’s application to modify the scheduling order, lodged February 12, 2002, and originally heard on shortened time on February 20, 2002. Oral argument was heard April 8, 2002.

I. BACKGROUND

BNSF contends trichloroethene (“TCE”) and chromium contamination emanated from a site at 2924 South Railroad Avenue in Fresno, California (the “Vendo/Floway site,” or the “Floway site”), now owned by Floway, and migrated into groundwater underlying BNSF’s property at East Church Avenue and East Avenue (the “BNSF site,” or the “Calwa Ice House site”). Plaintiff FMC Corporation…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.