Earth Island Institute et al v. Elliott et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER Granting 16 Motion to Intervene, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/30/17. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE and SEQUOIA
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
INTERVENE (ECF No. 16)
KEVIN ELLIOTT, in his official capacity as
10 Forest Supervisor of the Sequoia National
Forest, et al.,
The Court has received and reviewed the motion to intervene filed by Sierra Forest Products
(“SFP”). ECF No. 16. Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants take no position on the motion and have
agreed to submit the matter for decision based upon only the motion and its supporting documents.
Accordingly, the Court concludes the matter is suitable for decision on the papers pursuant to Local
Rule 230(g) and VACATES the hearing on the motion, currently set for November 21, 2017.
For good cause shown, SFP’s motion to intervene as of right as a defendant in this action under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) is GRANTED. SFP’s motion is timely; among other things, the fact that SFP holds
the contract to implement the Bull Run Project represents a significant protectable interest in the subject
matter of the litigation; disposition of the case would impact SFP’s protectable interests; and, while the
interests of SFP and Federal Defendants overlap, they are not identical, as Federal Defendants must
represent broad public interests beyond the predominantly economic interests of SFP. SFP’s
participation in the case is conditioned on it making every effort to avoid duplicative briefing.
Duplicative briefing will be disregarded and/or stricken.
Defendant-Intervenor shall file its lodged Answer within three (3) business days of entry of this
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
October 30, 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?