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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RENÉ P. VOSS (CA Bar No. 255758) 15 Alderney Road San Anselmo, CA 94960 Phone: (415) 446-9027 Email: LEAD COUNSEL RACHEL S. DOUGHTY (CA Bar No. 255904) Greenfire Law, PC 1202 Oregon St. Berkeley, CA 94702 Phone: (828) 424-2005 Email: 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?