et al v. Zinke et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting with conditions Motions to Intervene 16 , 34 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/16/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 BAY.ORG, ET AL., Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS STATE WATER CONTRACTORS’ AND METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S (ECF NO. 16) AND CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES’ (ECF NO. 34) MOTIONS TO INTERVENE v. 14 15 Case No. 1:17-CV-01176 LJO-EPG RYAN ZINKE, ET AL., Defendants. 16 17 18 The Court has received and reviewed the motions to intervene filed by the State Water 19 Contractors and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (ECF No. 16) and the California 20 Department of Water Resources (ECF No. 34), as well as all responses and replies. ECF Nos. 23-25, 38. 21 For good cause shown, both motions to intervene as of right as defendants in this action are 22 GRANTED subject to the condition that Defendant-Intervenors make every effort to avoid duplicative 23 briefing. Defendant-Intervenors shall file their lodged Answers within three (3) business days of entry of 24 this order. 25 Plaintiffs’ separate request to limit Defendant-Intervenors’ briefs or memoranda to ten pages, in 26 1 1 the case of motions and responses, and seven pages, in the case of replies, is DENIED. The request is 2 unwarranted by the circumstances and unsupported by the relevant authorities that require intervenors be 3 placed on an “equal footing” with other litigants. See Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness 4 Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893, 901 (9th Cir. 2011). In related cases, the Court has set page limits for every major 5 round of motions in advance during the scheduling process. Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the speedy 6 resolution of this case and the burden of overlength and/or duplicative briefing may be raised at that 7 time. 8 9 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. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ October 16, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?