Sequoia ForestKeeper v. La Price et al

Filing 34

ORDER Requiring Filing of the Administrative Record, Requiring Status Reports and Setting a Status Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/12/2017. Administrative Record due by 3/20/2017. Status reports due by 2/10/2017, 3/3/2017 and 3/31/2017. Status Conference set for 2/17/2017 at 08:30 AM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER, et al.,

11
12
13

Plaintiffs,
v.
ERIC LA PRICE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-00759-AWI-JLT
ORDER REQUIRING FILING OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, REQUIRING
STATUS REPORTS AND SETTING A STATUS
CONFERENCE

15
16

On January 12, 2017, the Court held the scheduling conference but determined, due to

17

outstanding information needed by the U.S. Forest Service, issuing a schedule was not appropriate at

18

this time. Rather, the Court will require the parties to file periodic status report/hearings. Thus, the

19

Court ORDERS:

20

1.

21
22
23
24

No later than February 10, 2017, counsel SHALL file a joint status report detailing the

data analysis of the CIB and any known impacts on this litigation that this analysis imposes;
2.

The Court sets a status conference on February 17, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. Appearances via

CourtCall are authorized;
3.

No later than March 3, 2017, counsel SHALL file a joint status report detailing whether

25

there are any impediments to the defendants’ lodging the administrative record on March 20, 2017 and

26

detailing the extent to which the record has been provided to the other parties;

27

4.

The administrative records SHALL be lodged no later than March 20, 2017;

28

5.

No later than March 31, 2017, counsel SHALL file a joint status report detailing the
1

1

determination of the U.S. Forest Service after considering the CBI data analysis, the impacts, if any, on

2

the positions of the other parties and whether there is disagreement as to whether the administrative

3

record is complete. The status report should also detail whether counsel believe the matter is ready for

4

further scheduling or, if not, why. If they agree the matter should be schedule, they SHALL propose

5

dates for the briefing schedule and SHALL use best efforts to agree on those dates. If there is

6

agreement, the Court may issue the schedule without further hearing.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 12, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2