Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. US Dept. of Interior, et al

Filing 48

STIPULATION of the Parties and ORDER Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 10/25/2010. (Plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum on or before 12/1/2010, Defendants and Defen dant-Intervenors shall file cross-motions for summary judgment and memoranda supporting their motions and responding to Plaintiffs motion on or before 1/7/2011, Plaintiff shall file a reply memoranda in support of Plaintiffs motion and in opposition to Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors motions on or before 1/28/2011, Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall file reply memoranda in support of Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors motions on or before 2/18/2011, Cross Motions for Summary Judgment Hearing set for 3/18/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger.) (Gaumnitz, R)

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

DOWNEY BRAND LLP STEVEN P. SAXTON (CA Bar No. 116943) KEVIN M. O'BRIEN (CA Bar No. 122713) ELLEN L. TRESCOTT (CA Bar No. 252082) 621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814-4731 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority J. MARK ATLAS (CA Bar No. 65086) Attorney at Law 332 West Sycamore Street Willows, CA 95988 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL AUTHORITY

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; MICHAEL L. CONNOR, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of Reclamation, and DONALD R. GLASER, in his official capacity as Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation for the MidPacific Region, Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00712-OWW-DLB STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE

1
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE

Plaintiff Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Defendants United States Department of the 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 2
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE

1

Interior, Kenneth Lee Salazar, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Michael L. Connor, and Donald R. Glaser, and Defendant-Intervenors San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District (collectively "Parties"), by and through their attorneys of record, hereby enter into this Stipulation. THE PARTIES JOINTLY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Court entered a Scheduling Conference Order in this case on July 16, 2010

(Document 38). That Order set forth dates for the Parties to file and brief any motions concerning the administrative record in this case, and also set the following dates concerning the Parties' anticipated Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment: (a) Cross-Motions shall be filed on or before November 22, 2010; (b) oppositions to Cross-Motions shall be filed on or before December 22, 2010; (c) replies to Cross-Motions shall be filed on or before January 11, 2011; and (d) CrossMotions shall be heard on February 22, 2011. 2. On September 23, 2010, counsel for Defendants filed a Status Report with the

Court (Document 41), to inform the Court that the Parties had reached agreement about the content of the administrative record and had also reached agreement on a revised schedule for filing motions for summary judgment. As noted in that Status Report, the Parties believe that a staggered briefing schedule will present the issues most clearly to the Court for the reasons set forth in the attached Saxton Declaration. The Status Report asked the Court to issue an order scheduling motions for summary judgment in accordance with the Parties' proposed revised schedule. When agreeing upon the content of that Status Report, the Parties inadvertently failed to abide by section XI of the Court's July 16th Scheduling Order, in which it is stated that adjustments may be made to the schedule outlined in the Scheduling Order "either by stipulation or by subsequent scheduling conference," and that "[s]tipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested." The Court has not issued the Order requested in the Status Report.

3. 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 /// /// /// /// /// /// ///

Since the filing of the September 23rd Status Report, the Parties have further

1

discussed the schedule for filing motions for summary judgment. (See Declaration of Steven P. Saxton, filed herewith.) A staggered briefing schedule is still preferred by all Parties but due to several obligations/scheduling conflicts in other cases the Parties have agreed to the following schedule for motions for summary judgment and related briefing: December 1, 2010 ­ Plaintiff files a motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum. January 7, 2011 ­ Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors file cross-motions for summary judgment and memoranda supporting their motions and responding to Plaintiff's motion. January 28, 2011 ­ Plaintiff files a reply memoranda in support of Plaintiff's motion and in opposition to Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors' motions. February 18, 2011 ­ Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors file reply memoranda in support of Defendants' and Defendant-Intervenors' motions. The Parties suggest that oral argument be heard on March 8, 2011, or on a date of the Court's choosing. This schedule represents a good faith compromise of disputed issues among the Parties, and the press of business and conflicting deadlines have necessitated this proposed revision to the schedule (see Saxton Declaration). 4. The Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an Order scheduling motions

for summary judgment in this matter as set forth above. An Order is attached.

IT IS SO STIPULATED

3
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE

DATED: _________________ 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: ______________ DATED: ______________

DOWNEY BRAND LLP By: /s/ Steven P. Saxton STEVEN P. SAXTON Attorney for Plaintiff

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE By: /s/ David W. Gehlert DAVID W. GEHLERT Attorney for Defendants

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

By: /s/ Daniel J. O'Hanlon DANIEL J. O'HANLON Attorney for Defendant-Intervenors

4
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE

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

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES SETTING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE The Court having reviewed the Stipulation filed by the Parties and good cause appearing therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation of the Parties filed on October 21, 2010, is approved. 1. Plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum

1

on or before December 1, 2010. 2. Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall file cross-motions for summary

judgment and memoranda supporting their motions and responding to Plaintiff's motion on or before January 7, 2011. 3. Plaintiff shall file a reply memoranda in support of Plaintiff's motion and in

opposition to Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors' motions on or before January 28, 2011. 4. Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall file reply memoranda in support of

Defendants' and Defendant-Intervenors' motions on or before February 18, 2011. 5. Oral argument shall be heard on March 18 at 9:00AM in Courtroom 3 before

Judge Wanger, extended time has been reserved by the Court for oral argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:
DEAC_Signature-END:

October 25, 2010

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

emm0d64h

5
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE