Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service et al
Filing
58
ORDER granting 56 Motion re page limit signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/2/13: Federal Defendants' and Defendant-Intervenors' cross-motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support, and response to Plaintiff's mo tion for summary judgment shall be filed on January 13, 2013. Plaintiff may file a response/opposition on or before January 17, 2013 at 5:00 pm. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing within 7 days of the entry of this order, as to why it should not be sanctioned in the amount of $500.00 for failure to comply with this Court's orders. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
8
9
10
11
12
13
CONSERVATION CONGRESS
CASE NO. 2:12-cv-02800-TLN-CKD
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE and
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
14
Federal Defendants.
15
16
17
18
This matter is before the Court pursuant to a scheduling matter concerning the parties’
19
motion and cross-motion for summary judgment. Because the Court finds the procedural posture
20
relevant to the Court’s decision in this matter, the Court has provided a brief summary of the
21
recent activity in this case.
22
On February 14, 2013, upon stipulation by the parties (ECF No. 26), this case was stayed
23
to allow the Forest Service to reinitiate consultation on the Northern Spotted Owl (“NSO”) for
24
the Algoma Vegetation Management Project (“Algoma Project”) on the Shasta Trinity National
25
Forest. (February 14, 2013 Stip. and Order, ECF No. 27). On August 16, 2013, in light of the
26
Forest Service’s completion of reinitiation of consultation and associated processes under the
27
National Environmental Policy Act, the Court lifted the stay, allowing Plaintiff Conservation
28
Congress (“Plaintiff”) to pursue the case. (Order Lifting Stay, ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff filed a
1
1
supplemental complaint on September 25, 2013 (ECF No. 33). Defendants U.S. Forest Service
2
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (collectively referred to as “Federal Defendants”) lodged and
3
served Plaintiff with a supplement to the Forest Service’s administrative record on September 27,
4
2013 (ECF No. 34), and the Fish & Wildlife’s administrative record on October 2, 2013 (ECF
5
No. 37).
6
On August 29, 2013, Defendant-Intervenors noticed that partial Project implementation
7
would begin by the end of October 2013. (See Ex. A, E-mail from Scott Horngren to Mary
8
Hollingsworth, et al., ECF No. 50-7.) The parties were unable to agree to a briefing schedule for
9
a motion for preliminary injunction. (See Joint Status Report, ECF No. 31.) On November 6,
10
2013, the parties agreed to an expedited summary judgment briefing schedule that would
11
conclude in mid-January because Defendant-Intervenors anticipated operations could start
12
moving into units containing NSO critical habitat by the end of January. (See Stipulation, ECF
13
No. 45; see also ECF No. 50 at 3.) This schedule, which was approved by the Court in a minute
14
order (ECF No. 46), required Plaintiff to file its motion for summary judgment and
15
accompanying memorandum in support by November 18, 2013.
16
On November 18, 2013, in the late morning, Plaintiff’s counsel requested two additional
17
days (until November 20, 2013) in which to file its motion and brief because Plaintiff’s counsel
18
was unable to locate files on her computer. (See Ex. B e-mail from Marianne Dugan to Julie
19
Thrower, et al., ECF No. 50-2.) Federal Defendants did not oppose the motion on the condition
20
that they were: (1) given additional time, from December 20 to December 23, 2013, to file their
21
cross-motion for summary judgment and response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment;
22
and (2) the remaining deadlines remained the same. (See Mot. for 2-day Extension of Time,
23
ECF No. 47.) The Court granted the parties’ request. (See Minute Order, ECF No. 49.)
24
On late night of November 20, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Federal Defendants and
25
Defendant-Intervenors that she was unable to file her brief because she was celebrating her
26
birthday and, therefore, she would file her brief in the morning on the following day. (See Ex. C
27
e-mail from Marianne Dugan to Julie Thrower, et al., ECF No. 50-3.) Plaintiff’s counsel
28
suggested that Federal Defendants could file their brief a day later than or previously agreed or
2
1
on December 24, 2013. (ECF No. 50-3.) However, Federal Defendants have informed the Court
2
that they have scheduled annual leave starting December 23, 2013, with the expectation that
3
Plaintiff would adhere to the schedule agreed upon by both parties. Thus, Federal Defendants
4
has asked the Court to revise the briefing schedule in its November 21, 2013, Order (ECF No.
5
49) to provide that only two briefs will be filed in this case: Plaintiff’s motion for summary
6
judgment, due November 21, 2013; and Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors cross-
7
motions for summary judgment and briefs in response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary
8
judgment, due on January 13, 2014. Federal Defendants contend that they have been prejudiced
9
by Plaintiff’s failure to adhere to the agreed upon schedule because: (1) both counsel had
10
scheduled leave; and (2) Julie Thrower had anticipated spending November 21, 2013, responding
11
to Plaintiff’s motion in order to accommodate other scheduled matters, including Thanksgiving
12
holiday, two oral arguments scheduled in early December, and a tentative mediation that same
13
month. (ECF No. 50 at 4.)
14
Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion alleging that the delay in filing its summary
15
judgment motion was minimal, that Defendants had previous extensions that Plaintiff did not
16
oppose, and that Plaintiff would be able to file a reply in a truncated time to avoid further delay.
17
(ECF No. 54.) In Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff also informed the Court that the summary
18
judgment that it had filed exceeded the page limits set by this Court.
19
20
21
22
23
Defendants’ counsel today brought to undersigned’s attention that she had
unfortunately overlooked Judge Nunley’s policy that briefs must not exceed 20
pages without prior approval. Plaintiff’s brief was 44 pages. Given the size of the
record and the number of legal issues, plaintiff’s counsel is not in good
conscience able to reduce the briefing to 20 pages. The parties are currently
discussing whether they will agree to a motion to allow overlength briefs for all
three parties.
(ECF No. 54 at 3 n.1.)
24
Defendants filed a reply asserting that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for its
25
failure to comply with the Court’s schedule and further due to the excessive length of Plaintiff’s
26
summary judgment motion and brief, it is even more appropriate to modify the current schedule
27
as requested by Federal Defendants. (ECF No. 55 at 3.)
28
3
1
The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s repeated disregard for the Court’s orders and procedures
2
has caused great disarray. However, the Court fears that denying Plaintiff the opportunity to file
3
a response will hinder the Court’s ability to locate important information within this case’s
4
expansive record. As such, the Court declines Defendants’ invitation to foreclose Plaintiff the
5
opportunity to file any sort of response to Defendants’ opposition/cross-motion for summary
6
judgment. Nevertheless, the Court will require that Plaintiff submit its response in a truncated
7
amount of time as to not delay these procedures further. As to Plaintiff’s failure to adhere to the
8
Court’s page limits on motions, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion
9
to Modify Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule (ECF No. 54) as a request to extend the page
10
limits and hereby grants such request with the understanding that Defendants are hereby limited
11
to fifty (50) pages collectively for their opposition/cross-motion, and further that Plaintiff’s
12
response is restricted to ten (10) pages. The Court also cautions the parties that further disregard
13
of this Court’s orders will not be tolerated, and that no further extensions will be granted without
14
a showing of good cause.
15
Although the Court has allowed Plaintiff’s to file its summary judgment motion and
16
briefing, the Court does not look kindly on Plaintiff’s actions concerning its repeated disregard
17
for the Court’s orders and procedures. As such, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing
18
within 7 days of the entry of this order, as to why it should not be sanctioned in the amount of
19
$500 for failure to file its summary judgment motion in compliance with the Court’s scheduling
20
order and the format specified by this Court.
21
For the foregoing reasons the Court hereby orders a revised schedule as follows:
22
1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and
23
memorandum in support is hereby extended to November 22, 2013. Thus, Plaintiff’s
24
motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support is timely.
25
26
27
28
2. To the extent that Plaintiff has requested an extension as to the page limit on its
motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED.
3. Federal Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ cross-motion for summary judgment
and memorandum in support, and response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary
4
1
judgment shall be filed on January 13, 2013 and is collectively limited to fifty (50)
2
pages.
3
4. Plaintiff may file a response/opposition on or before January 17, 2013 at 5:00 pm, not
4
to exceed ten (10) pages. Failure to comply with this deadline will result in a waiver
5
of Plaintiff’s right to respond.
6
5. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing within 7 days of the entry of
7
this order, as to why it should not be sanctioned in the amount of $500 for failure to
8
comply with this Court’s orders.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
Dated: December 2, 2013
13
14
15
16
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?