Sequoia ForestKeeper vs. U.S. Forest Service, et al.

Filing 51

ORDER Granting In Part And Denying In Part Joint Motion Modify The Scheduling ORDER (Doc. 47 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/3/2010.(Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition Deadline: 10/22/2010, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/2/2010, Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/20/2010, Plaintiff's Reply To Defendant's Opposition due by 9/17/2010) (Scrivner, E)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. 2. Pursuant to the Parties' joint request, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (Doc. 47) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the Scheduling Order is modified as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment must be filed no later than July 2, 2010. Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment must be filed no later than August 20, 2010. Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition and an Opposition to Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment must be filed no later than September 17, 1 UNITED STATE FOREST SERVICE, ABIGAIL KIMBELL, in her official capacity as Chief of the United States Forest Service, and TINA TERRELL, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for Sequoia National Forest, Defendants. / (Doc. 47) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER, a non-profit organization, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00392-LJO-JLT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. 6. 4.

2010. Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment must be filed no later than October 22, 2010. No other dates outlined in the Scheduling Order are modified. The parties are forewarned that having granted this and two previous amendments to the Scheduling Order upon the stipulation of the parties, no further modifications will be approved upon stipulation and a noticed motion establishing good cause will be required. The parties are reminded that a lack of diligence in pursuing this case does not constitute good cause to modify the Scheduling Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 3, 2010 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2