Center for Biological Diversity et al v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management et al
Filing
234
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SITE VISIT (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2010)
<![CDATA[
Center for Biological Diversity et al v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management et al
Doc. 234
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The federal defendants have requested that the Court conduct a site visit to view areas of the Western Mojave in connection with the briefing on an appropriate remedy. Plaintiffs have filed a response to that request stating that while they do not believe a site visit is necessary, they do not oppose a site visit. However, plaintiffs object to defendants' proposed timing for such a visit (August or September 2010), on the ground that due to extreme summer temperatures in August and September, a site visit during this time would be "starkly unrepresentative" of conditions in the desert on a typical weekend day during the OHV "season," which begins later in the year. The Court finds that a site visit is unnecessary for a determination of the appropriate remedy in this case. The Court ruled on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment based upon the extensive administrative record, and the parties' briefing on remedial issues has been voluminous. The Court believes that the briefing, administrative record, and argument of counsel at the September 3, 2010 hearing will provide a sufficient basis from which to make all decisions regarding the appropriate v. U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al., Plaintiffs,
No. C 06-4884 SI ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR A SITE VISIT
Dockets.Justia.com
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
remedy. In addition, the Court is concerned that any information gleaned during a site visit would anecdotal and that, regardless of when the visit occurred, would not be "representative" of conditions in one respect or another. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request for a site visit. (Docket No. 225).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 9, 2010
SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge
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?
