Sequoia ForestKeeper v. La Price et al

Filing 45

STIPULATION and ORDER 44 Regarding First Amended Complaint and Briefing Page Limits, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/9/2017. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

RENÉ P. VOSS (CA Bar No. 255758)
15 Alderney Road
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
LEAD COUNSEL
RACHEL S. DOUGHTY (CA Bar No. 255904)
Greenfire Law, PC
1202 Oregon St. Berkeley, CA 94702
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Counsel for Federal Defendants and DefendantIntervenor Listed on Signature Page

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

FRESNO DIVISION

14
15

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER,
Plaintiff,

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

v.
ERIC LA PRICE, et al.,
Federal Defendants, and
SIERRA FOREST PRODUCTS, a California
Corporation,
Intervenor-Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-CV-00759-AWI-JLT
STIPULATION REGARDING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT, BRIEFING
PAGE LIMITS, AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Doc. 44)

1
2

Stipulation to Amend Complaint
In its March 31, 2017, Scheduling Order, the Court ordered that no later than April 28,

3

2017, Plaintiff shall circulate its proposed first amended complaint, and no later than May 5,

4

2017, Plaintiff shall file either a stipulation to amend the complaint or a motion to amend the

5

complaint. Dkt. # 40.

6

On April 28, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel sent its proposed first amended complaint to both

7

Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenor’s counsel. On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff sent a request for a

8

stipulation to amend the complaint, to which both Defendants and Defendant-Intervenor

9

informally agreed. Since that time, Plaintiff has made changes to the proposed first amended

10

complaint. The claims in the final version remain the same as in the proposed complaint.

11

Having reviewed these changes, the parties hereby stipulate to the First Amended

12

Complaint, as attached hereto.

13

Stipulation regarding Briefing Page Limits

14
15

Moreover, the parties stipulate to the following page limits regarding the upcoming
briefing:

16

1. Plaintiff’s opening and reply briefs shall not exceed 60 pages in total.

17

2. Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenor’s opposition briefs shall not to exceed 30 pages
each.

18
19

3. Should the Court grant leave for sur-reply briefs, Defendants’ and DefendantIntervenor’s briefs shall not exceed 10 pages each.

20
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of May, 2017.
21
/s/ René Voss
RENÉ P. VOSS
RACHEL DOUGHTY
Greenfire Law, PC

22
23
24

Attorneys for Plaintiff

25
PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney

26
27

/s/ Joseph Frueh
JOSEPH B. FRUEH

28
Case No.: 1:16−CV−00759-AWI-JLT
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

(authorized on 5/5/2017)

1

1

Assistant United States Attorney

2

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

3
American Forest Resource Council

4
By

5
6

/s/Lawson Fite (authorized on 5/5/2017)
Lawson Fite
Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor

7
ORDER

8

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS:

9
10

1.

The stipulation for plaintiff to file the first amended complaint is GRANTED:

11

2.

The stipulation related to the substantive briefs is GRANTED. Thus, the opening

12

and reply briefs SHALL NOT exceed 60 pages and the opposing briefs SHALL NOT exceed

13

30 pages;

14

3.

In the event that there is a request for a sur-reply1, the Court notes that the parties

15

have agreed that the sur-replies will not exceed 10 pages each and the parties will be bound by

16

this agreement. However, the Court will await the filing of a request for a sur-reply before

17

addressing the procedures for doing so.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 9, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

Counsel are reminded that requests to file sur-replies are generally discouraged and they should endeavor to
include all arguments in their briefs because they can have no confidence that the Court will permit a sur-reply.

28
Case No.: 1:16−CV−00759-AWI-JLT
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

2