San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Salazar et al

Filing 144

SECOND AMENDMENT to June 24, 2009 120 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/15/2009. (Sant Agata, S)

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 THE DELTA SMELT CASES, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The June 24, 2009 Scheduling Order in the Delta Smelt Cases provides, in Part V.C., that dispositive motions addressing legal issues appropriate for early resolution are those "set forth in the Matrix listing Common Claims Appropriate for Early Disposition," attached as Exhibit A to the Scheduling Order. The referenced section in that Matrix lists (1) claims brought 1 ________________________________ STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. SALAZAR, et al. (Case No. 1:09cv-422) ________________________________ COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE DELTA, et al. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-480) ________________________________ METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT V. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. (Case No. 1:09cv-631) ________________________________ STEWART & JASPER ORCHARDS, et al. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-892) SAN LUIS DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, et al. v. SALAZAR, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-407) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-407 OWW GSA 1:09-cv-422 OWW GSA 1:09-cv-631 OWW GSA 1:09-cv-892 OWW GSA PARTIALLY CONSOLIDATED WITH: 1:09-cv-480 OWW GSA SECOND AMENDMENT TO JUNE 24, 2009 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER.

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

under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and the Administrative Procedure Act for failure to comply with NEPA prior to the preparation and issuance of the 2008 Biological Opinion; and (2) claims brought under the U.S. Constitution alleging that application of the Endangered Species Act violates the Commerce Clause. In addition to these claims, Plaintiffs requested at oral argument that first round of summary judgment motions (i.e., those suitable for early disposition) include certain claims concerning the issuance of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative ("RPA"). Plaintiffs assert that these RPA claims can be decided

on the administrative record alone, without supplementation. (Supplementation, if appropriate, will not be completed by the time the first round of summary judgment motions is briefed.) Defendants and Intervenors rejoin that it is not yet possible to determine whether a decision on the RPA claims will require supplementation of the record. On July 7, 2009, the Scheduling Conference Order was amended to permit the parties to "present their RPA claims with the early disposition claims." Doc. 133. at 2. Defendants and Defendant

Intervenors were permitted to "argue that the Administrative Record is incomplete and that RPA issues are not ripe for decision." Id.

The parties requested further clarification of the order, Docs. 135 & 138, and a further scheduling conference was convened on July 10, 2009. The following clarifying language suggested

by the parties, with a minor modification, is adopted:

2

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 Dated: b2e55c

The moving parties may present their RPA claims with the early disposition claims. RPA claims that are to be heard with early dispositive motions are to be limited to facial challenges that address whether the requirements of the law have been met, without the necessity of a determination of disputed factual issues. The scheduling order is SO AMENDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. July 15, 2009 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3