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)

Download PDF
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

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?