Murphy v. United States Forest Service, et al.

Filing 71

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/31/15 ORDERNG that the hearing on the 67 Motion for Summary Judgment is RESET to 3/21/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. That the date f or the Defendants opposition and any cross-motion be continued by two weeks, up to and including January 21, 2016;plaintiff's Opposition and reply is due 02/11/16; the United States' reply on any cross motion is due 02/29/16. Defendants will also agree to present plaintiff's with a privilege log by 02/10/16.(Benson, A)

1
2
3
4

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
GREGORY T. BRODERICK
Assistant United States Attorney
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
Attorneys for Defendants
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14

DENNIS D. MURPHY

CASE NO. 13-cv-02315-GEB-AC

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE;
TOM TIDWELL, in his official capacity as
Chief of the United States Forest Service;
and NANCY J. GIBSON, in her official
capacity as Forest Supervisor of the United
States Forest Service,
Defendants

STIPULATION AND ]
ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

15
16

The parties seek an order from this Court continuing the briefing schedule by approximately two

17

weeks. Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment on December 8, 2015, in accordance with the

18

Court’s previously adopted briefing schedule. (Dkt. No. 67). Pursuant to the current briefing schedule,

19

the United States’ opposition to that motion, and any cross-motion, are due January 7, 2015, Plaintiff’s

20

Opposition and Reply are due January 28, 2016, and Defendants’ Reply is due February 15, 2016. See

21

Status Order, Dkt. No. 58. The hearing is set for March 7, 2016, at 9 a.m. Since Plaintiff’s motion was

22

filed, counsel for the United States was unexpectedly set for trial before Judge England, and also learned

23

that key Forest Service personnel would be unavailable during the final two weeks of the year to assist

24

with the opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and preparation of the United States’ own motion. Their

25

assistance is necessary in this matter, which involves a challenge to an administrative decision regarding

26

matters that include technical/scientific expertise.

27
28

The parties commit to act diligently, both to narrow the disputes and to present the Court with
the most helpful papers on the issues that are in dispute. In order to further those aims and to efficiently
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1

1
2
3

resolve this matter, the parties hereby stipulate as follows:
1.

That the date for the Defendants opposition and any cross-motion be continued by two

weeks, up to and including January 21, 2016;

4

2.

That Plaintiff’s Opposition and reply be continued to February 11, 2016;

5

3.

That the United States’ reply on any cross motion be continued to February 29, 2016;

6

4.

That the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, and any cross-motion, be continued to March 21,

7

2016, at 9 a.m., if that date is available and convenient for the Court. If not, the parties propose that the

8

matter be heard on the first date that the Court is available thereafter.

9

In addition, there have been lingering discovery disputes that the parties are working to resolve

10

informally. To that end, Defendants will also agree to present Plaintiff’s with a privilege log by

11

February 10, 2016.

12

The parties submit that this schedule will permit them to brief this matter in a manner that will be

13

more useful to the Court and aid its decision-making process in this case. In addition, there is virtually

14

no risk of a material change in circumstances in the meantime, because the authorization for the

15

challenged project has been withdrawn, and there have been no on-the-ground activities for more than

16

one year. There is thus good cause for the continuance, and the Court should grant it.

17

Respectfully submitted,

18

DATED: December 31, 2015

19

By

20
21
22
23

By:

/s/ Paul S. Weiland (auth. 12/31/2015)
Attorney for Plaintiff
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
/s/ Gregory T. Broderick
GREGORY T. BRODERICK
Assistant United States Attorney

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: January 4, 2016

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

3