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

Filing 51

STIPULATION of the Parties and ORDER Regarding Page Limits For Memoranda of Law Related to Motions For Summary Judgment, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 11/22/2010. (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, SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY and WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, Defendant-Intervenors.
1124721.1

Case No. 1:10-cv-00712-OWW-DLB STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS FOR MEMORANDA OF LAW RELATED TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS

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 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 an "Order Regarding Page Limits for Cases Assigned to Judge

1

Mendez" on February 11, 2010 (Document 5-2), which states: "Unless prior permission has been granted, memoranda of law in support of and in opposition to motions are limited to twenty-five (25) pages, and reply memoranda are limited to ten (10) pages." 2. The Parties agree that this case can appropriately be decided on cross-motions for

summary judgment, and on October 26, 2010, the Court entered an "Order Approving Stipulation of the Parties Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule." That Order set forth a staggered briefing schedule whereby (1) Plaintiff will file a motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum on or before December 1, 2010; (2) Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors will 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 will file a reply memoranda in support of Plaintiff's motion and in opposition to Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors' motions on or before January 28, 2010; and (4) Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors will file reply memoranda in support of Defendants' and Defendant-Intervenors' motions on or before February 18, 2011. 3. This case involves issues of both federal and state law relating to the development

and operation of the Central Valley Project, and the administrative record is over 10,000 pages in length. (See Declaration of S. Saxton, filed herewith.) Furthermore, due to the established staggered briefing schedule, Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors will combine their memoranda in support of motions for summary judgment with memoranda in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and similarly, Plaintiff will combine its memoranda in opposition to Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors' motions for summary judgment with its
1124721.1

2
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS

replies in support of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (Id.) Accordingly, at Plaintiff's 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
1124721.1

1

request, the Parties conferred and have agreed that the page limitations set forth in the Court's February 11, 2010 Order will likely not be sufficient to adequately present the issues to the Court through cross-motions for summary judgment. (Id.) The Parties have agreed that 40 pages is a more appropriate limit for memoranda in support of and in opposition to motions for summary judgment in this case, and for reply memoranda. 4. The Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order setting the page limit

for memoranda of law in support of and in opposition to motions for summary judgment, and reply memoranda, at 40 pages. An Order is attached.

IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: November 19, 2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP By: /s/ Steven P. Saxton STEVEN P. SAXTON Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: November 19, 2010 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE By: /s/ David W. Gehlert (as authorized on 11/19/10) DAVID W. GEHLERT Attorney for Defendants DATED: November 19, 2010 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

By: /s/ Daniel J. O'Hanlon (as authorized on 11/19/10 DANIEL J. O'HANLON Attorney for Defendant-Intervenors

3
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
DEAC_Signature-END:

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES REGARDING PAGE LIMITS FOR MEMORANDA OF LAW RELATED TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 November 19, 2010, is approved. Unless prior permission has been granted, memoranda of law in support of and in opposition to motions for summary judgment are limited to forty (40) pages, and reply memoranda are also limited to forty (40) pages.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

November 22, 2010

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

emm0d64h

1124721.1

4
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS