Bay.org et al v. Zinke et al
ORDER granting with conditions Motions to Intervene 16 , 34 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/16/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BAY.ORG, ET AL.,
ORDER GRANTING WITH
CONDITIONS STATE WATER
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S (ECF
NO. 16) AND CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES’ (ECF NO. 34) MOTIONS
Case No. 1:17-CV-01176 LJO-EPG
RYAN ZINKE, ET AL.,
The Court has received and reviewed the motions to intervene filed by the State Water
Contractors and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (ECF No. 16) and the California
Department of Water Resources (ECF No. 34), as well as all responses and replies. ECF Nos. 23-25, 38.
For good cause shown, both motions to intervene as of right as defendants in this action are
GRANTED subject to the condition that Defendant-Intervenors make every effort to avoid duplicative
briefing. Defendant-Intervenors shall file their lodged Answers within three (3) business days of entry of
Plaintiffs’ separate request to limit Defendant-Intervenors’ briefs or memoranda to ten pages, in
the case of motions and responses, and seven pages, in the case of replies, is DENIED. The request is
unwarranted by the circumstances and unsupported by the relevant authorities that require intervenors be
placed on an “equal footing” with other litigants. See Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness
Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893, 901 (9th Cir. 2011). In related cases, the Court has set page limits for every major
round of motions in advance during the scheduling process. Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the speedy
resolution of this case and the burden of overlength and/or duplicative briefing may be raised at that
The Court takes this opportunity to note, however, that the increasingly long page limits being
requested in both non-dispositive and dispositive motions in related cases makes efficient resolution of
10 disputes extremely difficult. Going forward, the Court is inclined to be more restrictive with page limits
11 overall and will not hesitate to strike duplicative briefing. The parties should consider this when
12 proposing page limits during the scheduling process.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
October 16, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?