Rocky Mountain Farmers Union et al v. Corey, et al

Filing 311

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/4/2014. Motions to Amend filed by 9/26/2014. Oppositions due by 10/10/2014. Replies due by 10/17/2014. Further Scheduling Conference set for 6/18/2015 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS
UNION, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

RICHARD W. COREY, in his official
capacity as Executive Officer of the
California Air Resources Board, et al.,1

15

Consolidated with:
Case No: 1:10-cv-163-LJO-DLB
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Case No. 1:09-cv-02234- LJO-BAM

(And Related Consolidated Action)
The Court held a scheduling conference in this matter on August 28, 2014 before Magistrate

18
19

Judge Gary Austin.2 Plaintiffs' counsel Timothy Jones, John Kinsey, Stuart Drake, Shannon

20

Broome, and Paul Zidlicky appeared personally and John O'Quinn, Howard Rubin, and Roger

21

Martella appeared telephonically. Defendants' counsel Margaret Meckenstock and David

22
Zonana appeared personally and Gavin McCabe and appeared telephonically. Intervenors'
23
24
25

counsel Joanne Spalding appeared personally, and Sean Donahue, Jennifer Sorenson, Larrisa
Koehler, and Tim O'Connor appeared telephonically.

26
1

27
28

Richard W. Corey succeeded James N. Goldstene as Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Richard W. Corey, in his official capacity, is
substituted for James N. Goldstene as a defendant in this action.
2
The case was thereafter assigned to the undersigned.

1

1

BACKGROUND

2
3

The Plaintiffs in this consolidated action challenge the California low-carbon fuel standard
regulation (“LCFS”).3 The Plaintiffs allege that the LCFS violates the dormant Commerce

4
Clause by discriminating against out-of-state fuels, by regulating extraterritorially, and by unduly
5
6
7

burdening interstate commerce. The Plaintiffs further allege that the LCFS is preempted by the
federal Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA”).

8

The parties anticipate that the case will be resolved through cross-motions for summary

9

judgment. Doc. 303 at 2, 6. 4 However, the parties have indicated that they anticipate filing a

10
11
12
13
14
15

number of preliminary motions before briefing their summary judgment motions. These
preliminary motions include: (1) Plaintiffs’ motions to amend their complaints; (2) Defendants’
motions to dismiss any amended complaints that are filed; and (3) Defendants’ motion to stay the
proceedings given that the LCFS is currently under review and revision by the California Air
Resources Board.

16

At the August 28, 2014 scheduling conference, the parties jointly proposed that these

17

preliminary motions be filed and ruled upon in a specific order. Plaintiffs’ motions to amend

18

their complaints would be filed first, followed by Defendants’ motions to dismiss any amended

19

complaints, followed by Defendants’ motion to stay. The parties’ prefer this progression because

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the claims at issue in the case will be clear once the motions to amend and to dismiss are
resolved, which, in turn, would facilitate adjudication of the anticipated motion to stay.
3

Case No. 1:09-cv-2234-LJO-BAM, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, et al. v. Richard W. Corey, in his official
capacity as Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board, et al., was consolidated with Case No. 1:10-cv163-LJO-DLB, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, et al. v. Richard W. Corey, in his official capacity as
Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board, et al. The cases were consolidated for all purposes except
for judgment and appeal. See Doc. 106. The lead case is Case No. 1:09-cv-2234-LJO-BAM. The Conservation Law
Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club intervened on the
side of government Defendants in both cases. At the Scheduling Conference held on August 28, 2014, the Court was
informed that the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association has changed its name to the American Fuel and
Petrochemical Manufactures Association (“AFPM”).
4
Unless otherwise indicated, citations to “Doc.” refer to items in this Court’s docket for the lead case (1:09-cv02234).

2

The Court will not set a briefing schedule for the parties’ cross-motions for summary

1
2
3

judgment at this juncture. As discussed below, the Court will set a briefing schedule for the
anticipated summary judgment motions at a hearing to be held after the above-referenced

4
preliminary motions are resolved. The Court will also address discovery issues and set discovery
5
6

deadlines, if necessary, at that time.

7

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY MOTIONS

8

Having considered the parties’ joint scheduling-conference statement, the agreements

9

reached by the parties at the scheduling conference, and the arguments presented by the parties at

10
11

the scheduling conference, the Court herein sets briefing schedules for the preliminary motions
identified by the parties. These motions shall be heard by District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill. At

12
13
14
15

this time, the Court will not set dates for hearings on the motions. If, upon review of the papers,
the District Court determines that hearings would be beneficial, it will schedule them and notify
the parties accordingly.
A. Plaintiffs’ Motions to Amend Their Complaints

16
17



Plaintiffs’ Motions to Amend the Complaints shall be filed no later than September
26, 2014;



Oppositions by Defendants and Intervenors shall be filed no later than October 10,
2014;5



Plaintiffs’ Replies shall be filed no later than October 17, 2014.

18
19
20
21
22

///

23
///
24
25
26

///
///

27
28

5

Defendants and Intervenors have indicated that they anticipate submitting joint briefs to the Court in this matter.

3

B. Defendants’ Responses/Motions to Dismiss Re. Any Amended
Complaints Filed Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Amend

1
2



Defendants’ Responses/Motions to Dismiss regarding any amended complaints shall
be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of filing of the amended
complaints;



Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss shall be filed no later than thirty (30)
days after the date of filing of the Motions to Dismiss;



3

Replies shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of filing of any
Oppositions.

4
5
6
7
8

C. Defendants’ Motion to Stay

9



12
13
14

17

Replies shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the date of filing of any
Oppositions.

The Court adopts the parties’ stipulation that November 27-28, 2014 and December 24-

15
16

Oppositions to the Motions to Stay shall be filed no later than twenty-one (21) days
after the date of filing of the Motion to Stay;



11

Defendants’ Motion to Stay shall be filed fourteen (14) days after the date of issuance
of the Court’s order on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss;



10

January 1, 2015 shall not be counted in determining deadlines within the framework of the
briefing schedules outlined above. The briefing schedules may by adjusted by stipulation of the

18
parties to the extent they are impacted by the periods that are to be excluded in calculating
19
20

applicable filing deadlines.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24
25

///
///

26
27
28

///
///
4

1
2
3

D. Further Scheduling Conference Re. Summary Judgment Motions & Discovery
A further scheduling conference will be held on June 18, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8
before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, to set a briefing schedule for the parties’ cross-

4
motions for summary judgment and to address related discovery issues and set requisite discovery
5
6

deadlines. In the event that the preliminary motions referenced above are not resolved before

7

June 2015, the Court may continue the scheduling conference sua sponte or at the parties’

8

request. If the motions are resolved, the parties may request that the scheduling conference be

9

advanced.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 4, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5