Natural Resources Defense Council et al v. Norton et al

Filing 1025

ORDER RE FURTHER SCHEDULING signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on May 24, 2016. (Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01207 LJO-GSA ORDER RE FURTHER SCHEDULING Plaintiffs, 8 vs. 9 DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary, 10 U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants. 11 SAN LUIS & DELTA MENDOTA WATER 12 AUTHORITY; et al., Defendant-Intervenors. ANDERSON-COTTONWOOD IRRIGATION 14 DISTRICT; et al., 13 Joined Parties. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Having reviewed the parties’ joint status report and associated declarations, the Court issues the following rulings: (1) Although Rule 12 motions may narrow the scope of certain claims in this case, the Court does not believe the claims are likely to be narrowed in a manner that would dramatically alter the nature and scope of the necessary administrative record. Therefore, there is no reason why the government should delay beginning to compile the administrative record. However, the government should be afforded a reasonable amount of time after the Court rules on any Rule 12 motions to finalize the administrative record to align its scope with the scope of any remaining claims. Likewise, the government has presented evidence 1 1 demonstrating that the relevant agencies have competing priorities and therefore must be 2 afforded a reasonable amount of total time to compile the administrative record. 3 (2) In the Court’s experience, the Defendants’ proposed model for scheduling cross-motions for 4 summary judgment, with Plaintiffs filing an opening motion, Defendants filing a combined 5 opposition and cross-motion, Plaintiffs filing a combined reply and opposition, and 6 Defendants filing a reply, is vastly more efficient and less repetitive than the more traditional 7 alternative suggested by Plaintiffs. The four-step model is therefore adopted by the Court. 8 (3) As to the scheduling of discovery in connection with Plaintiffs’ Sixth Claim for Relief 9 (violation of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”)), Plaintiffs propose to wait 10 until the filing of the administrative record before seeking any such discovery. In contrast, 11 Defendants propose initiating discovery only “if the claim survives any [Rule 12] motions 12 and [] cannot be resolved based on cross-motions for summary judgment.” Doc. 1021 at 12. 13 Discovery is, at least under certain circumstances, permissible in connection with ESA § 9 14 claims, which require a plaintiff to demonstrate “by a preponderance of evidence that the 15 [defendants’] actions resulted in an unlawful take of [a listed species].” Oregon Nat. Desert 16 Ass’n v. Kimbell, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1220 (D. Or. 2009); see also Am. Soc’y For 17 Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v. Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Circus, 233 F.R.D. 18 209, 211 (D.D.C. 2006) (discussing discovery disputes in connection with ESA Section 9 19 claim). Defendants’ request to bar outright pre-dispositive motion discovery in this case is 20 inappropriate for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs may agree, upon review of the 21 administrative record, that discovery is unnecessary. Even if Plaintiffs do not so agree, it is 22 likely to serve the interests of judicial and party efficiency to conduct discovery prior to the 23 filling of dispositive motions, as doing so may obviate the need for two rounds of summary 24 judgment motions. Once the Court and the parties are invested in dispositive motions 25 practice, it is generally far more efficient to resolve all disputes simultaneously. 2 1 (4) The parties are instructed to meet and confer again in an attempt to adopt a mutually 2 agreeable schedule that comports with these rulings. If the parties cannot agree, they are to 3 submit competing schedules, providing dates only, without further argument, and the Court 4 will determine the schedule unilaterally. The agreed upon schedule or list of disputed dates 5 shall be submitted on or before June 2, 2016. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ May 24, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?