Natural Resources Defense Council et al v. Norton et al

Filing 1076

STIPULATION and SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on April 13, 2017. (Munoz, I)

1

COUNSEL IDENTIFICATION ON FINAL PAGE

2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL, et al.,

9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:05-cv-01207 LJO-EPG
STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING
ORDER

v.
RYAN ZINKE, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Interior, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

SAN LUIS & DELTA MENDOTA
WATER AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants-Intervenors.
ANDERSON-COTTONWOOD
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.,
Joined Parties.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01207 LJO-EPG

1

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Court entered the Parties’ previous stipulation partially modifying the

2
3

Court’s Further Scheduling Order (Dkt. 1027) on March 21, 2017 (Dkt. 1073);

4
5

WHEREAS, that stipulation revised the schedule for responsive pleadings and
administrative records, but did not change the remainder of the schedule;

6

WHEREAS, the Parties indicated that they would continue to meet and confer regarding

7

“(i) the propriety, need for, or scope of discovery as to the claims against the Federal Defendants;

8

(ii) discovery schedules; (iii) a briefing schedule; or (iv) pre-trial and trial scheduling” (Dkt.

9

1073);

10

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that Plaintiffs’ Second and Fourth Claims will be resolved

11

based on the administrative record, and, therefore, discovery is not appropriate as to those claims;

12

WHEREAS, Federal Defendants submit that Plaintiffs’ Sixth Claim against Federal

13

Defendants, as narrowed by this Court’s February 23, 2017 Order (Dkt. 1069), can also be

14

resolved on the administrative record, but Plaintiffs submit that the need for discovery on the Sixth

15

Claim against Federal Defendants should be assessed after the administrative record is filed;

16

WHEREAS, the Parties accordingly continue to agree that the need for and scope of

17

discovery for the Sixth Claim against Federal Defendants should be addressed after the

18

administrative record is filed (Dkt. 1073 at 2);

19
20
21

WHEREAS, the Parties have now agreed on a revised schedule for all other discovery,
briefing, pre-trial, and trial dates;
WHEREAS, during the meet and confer Federal Defendants requested that Plaintiffs

22

abstain from propounding discovery as to Plaintiffs’ Sixth Claim against the Sacramento River

23

Settlement Contractors (“SRS Contractors”), other than requests for production, on Federal

24

Defendants until after the Court had resolved any motion to limit review of the Sixth Claim as

25

against Federal Defendants to the administrative record, or until the parties filed a stipulation to

26

the same effect;

27

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs disagreed with Federal Defendants’ proposal;

28

WHEREAS, in an effort to finalize the proposed discovery schedule, Federal Defendants
1

STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01207 LJO-EPG

1

agreed to withdraw their request but do not waive any rights, objections, or responses that Federal

2

Defendants may have to Plaintiffs’ propounded discovery;

3

AND WHEREAS, the Parties’ agreed schedule seeks to balance the Parties’ need for

4

adequate preparation time with the goal of resolving this case expeditiously and the Court’s

5

previously expressed preference against bifurcation (Doc. 1027 at 3);

6
7

STIPULATION
NOW THEREFORE, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby stipulate to the

8

following schedule regarding discovery, briefing, and trial deadlines. The Parties agree that the

9

proposed discovery schedule does not waive any rights, objections, or responses that Federal

10

Defendants may have to discovery propounded against the Federal Defendants as to Plaintiffs’

11

Sixth Claim against the SRS Contractors. For the Court’s reference, the schedule set forth below

12

incorporates and italicizes the dates previously entered by the Court in response to the Parties’ prior

13

stipulation (Dkt. 1073).

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01207 LJO-EPG

1
2
3
4
5
6

Date
April 12, 2017
April 14, 2017
April 19, 2017
May 3, 2017
May 10, 2017

7
8

May 15, 2017

May 24, 2017

June 5, 2017

Plaintiffs and SRS Contractors shall serve initial disclosures.

7 days after Court’s ruling
on completeness of AR

Federal Defendants shall complete the AR to conform to the
Court’s ruling.

90 days after the AR is
deemed complete, or
September 15, 2017,
whichever is later

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) on all claims
shall be filed.

30 days after Plaintiffs’
MSJ

Defendants’ oppositions and any MSJ shall be filed.

30 days after Defendants’
oppositions and MSJ

Plaintiffs’ reply and oppositions to Defendants’ MSJ shall be
filed.

14 days after Plaintiffs’
opposition

Defendants’ replies to their MSJ shall be filed.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Federal Defendants shall lodge the AR.
Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants shall meet and confer over the
need for discovery on the Sixth Claim against Federal
Defendants.
Fact discovery begins for all parties regarding Plaintiffs’ Sixth
Claim against SRS Contractors.
Motions regarding the completeness of AR are due.
Motions or stipulations to limit the Sixth Claim against Federal
Defendants to the AR are due (Dkt. 1073 at 2).
Notice to Court and parties regarding intent to seek discovery on
the Sixth Claim against Federal Defendants due (Dkt. 1027 at 2).

9
10

Event
Federal Defendants distribute draft administrative record (“AR”)
index.
Answers to Plaintiffs’ Fifth Supplemental Complaint shall be
filed.
Comments on draft AR index are due to Federal Defendants.

14 days after Defendants’
reply
December 11, 2017
January 10, 2018

Hearing on MSJ shall be held.
Fact discovery cutoff.
Expert disclosures shall be filed.

23

February 9, 2018

Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be filed.

24

February 28, 2018
March 6, 2018
March 13, 2018

Expert discovery cutoff.
Joint pretrial statement due.
Pretrial conference.

March 27, 2018
April 3, 2018
April 10, 2018

Proposed pretrial orders due.
Answering trial briefs due.
First day of trial.

25
26
27
28

3

STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01207 LJO-EPG

1

DATED: April 12, 2017

Barbara J. Chisholm
Barbara J. Chisholm

.

2
HAMILTON CANDEE (SBN 111376)
BARBARA JANE CHISHOLM (SBN 224656)
TONY LOPRESTI (SBN 289269)
CORINNE JOHNSON (SB 287385)
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post St., Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

3
4
5
6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiff NRDC
8
KATHERINE POOLE (SBN 195010)
DOUGLAS ANDREW OBEGI (SBN 246127)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
111 Sutter Street, 21st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9
10
11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiff NRDC
13

16

TRENT W. ORR (SBN 77656)
EARTHJUSTICE
50 California St. Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14
15

18
DATED: April 12, 2017
19

/s/ Nicole M. Smith (as authorized on April 12,
2017)
Nicole M. Smith

20
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION
601 D Street, NW Room 3712
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

21
22
23
24

Attorneys for Respondents Ryan Zinke, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Interior, et al.

25
26
27

DATED: April 12, 2017

/s/ Meredith Nikkel (as authorized on April 12, 2017)
Meredith Nikkel

28

DOWNEY BRAND LLP
4

STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01207 LJO-EPG

1

621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

2
3

Attorneys for Intervenors and Joined Party
Defendants Reclamation District No. 108, Sutter
Mutual Water Company, Natomas Central Mutual
Water Company, River Garden Farms Company,
Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Company,
Pelger Mutual Water Company, Meridian Farms
Water Company, Henry D. Richter, et al., Howald
Farms, Inc., Oji Brothers Farm, Inc., Oji Family
Partnership, Carter Mutual Water Company,
Windswept Land And Livestock Company, Maxwell
Irrigation District, and Tisdale Irrigation and
Drainage Company

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
DATED: April 12, 2017
12
13

SOMACH SIMMONS & DUNN
A Professional Corporation
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Intervenors and Joined Party
Defendants Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District,
Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District,
Provident Irrigation District, Anderson-Cottonwood
Irrigation District, City Of Redding, M & T Chico
Ranch (Pacific Realty Associates), Reclamation
District No. 1004, Conaway Preservation Group,
LLC, and David and Alice te Velde Family Trust

18
19
20
21
22
23
DATED: April 12, 2017
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ Andrew Hitchings (as authorized on April 12,
2017)
Andrew Hitchings

/s/ Daniel J. O’Hanlon (as authorized on April 12,
2017)
Daniel J. O’Hanlon
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN &
GIRARD
A Professional Corporation
400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
5

STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01207 LJO-EPG

1
2
3
4
5
6

Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors and Joined
Party Defendants, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water
Authority, Westlands Water District, Coelho Family
Trust, Eagle Field Water District, Fresno Slough
Water District, Mercy Springs Water District, Oro
Loma Water District, and Tranquillity Irrigation
District

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01207 LJO-EPG

1
2
3

ORDER
Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation, the Court hereby ORDERS that the following schedule
for further proceedings in this case is established.
Date

4

Event

5

May 15, 2017

Fact discovery begins for all parties regarding Plaintiffs’ Sixth
Claim against SRS Contractors.

6

June 5, 2017

Plaintiffs and SRS Contractors shall serve initial disclosures.

7

90 days after the AR is
deemed complete, or
September 15, 2017,
whichever is later

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) on all claims
shall be filed.

10

30 days after Plaintiffs’
MSJ

Defendants’ oppositions and any MSJ shall be filed.

11

30 days after Defendants’
oppositions and MSJ

Plaintiffs’ reply and oppositions to Defendants’ MSJ shall be
filed.

12

14 days after Plaintiffs’
opposition

Defendants’ replies to their MSJ shall be filed.

13

15

14 days after Defendants’
reply
December 11, 2017
January 10, 2018

16

February 9, 2018

Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be filed.

February 28, 2018
March 6, 2018
March 13, 2018

Expert discovery cutoff.
Joint pretrial statement due.
Pretrial conference.

March 27, 2018
April 3, 2018
April 10, 2018

Proposed pretrial orders due.
Answering trial briefs due.
First day of trial.

8
9

14

17
18
19
20

Hearing on MSJ shall be held.
Fact discovery cutoff.
Expert disclosures shall be filed.

21
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

April 13, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
7

STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01207 LJO-EPG