Southern California Alliance of POTWs et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/23/2015 DENYING 42 Application for an order striking the new arguments and Evidence and GRANTING 42 Application for leave for plaintiffs to file a surreply. No later than two days following the date of this order, plaintiffs are directed to file their surreply. Any response by Defendant EPA must be filed no later than three days following the filing of the surreply. It is further ORDERED that the HEARING as to 25 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 30 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and 36 MOTION to COMPEL current set for 3/5/2015 is VACATED and CONTINUED to 3/19/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE
OF PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT
WORKS, and CENTRAL VALLEY
CLEAN WATER ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

No. 2:14-cv-01513-MCE-DAD

ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY; JARED
BLUMENFELD, REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, REGION IX; and DOES 1 to
10,
Defendants.

21
22

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Order Striking

23

New Arguments and Evidence Submitted for the First Time in EPA’s Reply to Plaintiffs’

24

Opposition to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Granting

25

Leave for Plaintiffs to File a Surreply (ECF No. 42).

26

An Ex Parte Application is not the appropriate mechanism for bringing a Motion to

27

Strike. Therefore, the Application for an Order Striking the New Arguments and

28

Evidence is DENIED. In the interest of fairness and because this request is unopposed
1

1

(ECF No. 43), Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Granting Leave for Plaintiffs to File a

2

Surreply is nonetheless GRANTED.1 No later than two days following the date this order

3

is electronically filed, Plaintiffs are directed to file their Surreply. Any response to the

4

Surreply by Defendant EPA must be filed by no later than three (3) days following the

5

filing of the Surreply.

6

The March 5, 2015 hearing on the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF

7

Nos. 25, 30) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 36) is VACATED and

8

CONTINUED to Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2015

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The Court does not look favorably on ex parte applications that could have been avoided by
stipulation. Counsel are all admonished that any future ex parte applications will be rejected unless the
parties specifically explain: (1) the steps they took to meet and confer; and (2) why no stipulation could be
reached.

2