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)

Download PDF
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?