Murphy v. United States Forest Service, et al.

Filing 78

STIPULATION and ORDER 77 continuing Briefing Schedule signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/4/2016. Plaintiff's 67 Motion for Summary Judgment is RE-SET for 4/7/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN). Defendants' Opposition and Cross-Motion is NOW DUE by 2/22/2016. Plaintiff's Reply and Opposition to be filed by 3/21/2016 and defendants' Reply shall be submitted no later than 4/1/2016. (Marciel, M)

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
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

CASE NO. 13-cv-02315-TLN-AC
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

15
16

The parties have identified a new and substantial possibility for resolution. However, they

17

cannot dedicate time to both exploring this new resolution and to the current summary judgment briefing

18

schedule. Therefore, the parties hereby stipulate to, and seek an order from this Court, continuing the

19

briefing schedule on the pending motions for summary judgment as set forth below.

20
21

Event
Defendants’ Opposition and
Cross-Motion

Current Date
February 8, 2016

Proposed Date
February 22, 2016

22
23
24

Plaintiff’s Reply and Opposition March 7, 2016

March 21, 2016

Defendants’ Reply

April 1, 2016

March 17, 2016

25

The parties also stipulate to, and propose continuing the current hearing date of March 24, 2016, at 2

26

p.m. to April 7, 2016, at 2 p.m.

27

The parties further note that the Forest Service halted the Project some time ago (though there is

28

a dispute regarding the ongoing environmental impacts of previously implemented Project actions) and

29

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

30

1

1

authorization for the challenged Project has been withdrawn. There is thus good cause for the

2

continuance, and the Court should grant it.

3

Respectfully submitted,

4

DATED: February 3, 2016

5

By

6

/s/ Paul S. Weiland (auth. Feb 3, 2016)
Attorney for Plaintiff
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

7
By:

8
9

/s/ Gregory T. Broderick
GREGORY T. BRODERICK
Assistant United States Attorney

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: February 4, 2016

4
5
6

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

3