Center for Biological Diversity et al v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management et al

Filing 273

ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiff,

No. C 06-4884 SI
ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

v.
US BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,

12

Defendant.

/

13
14

Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys fees was filed on July 18, 2011. The parties originally set the

15

hearing on the motion for October 7, 2011, some 12 weeks after its filing. Because the Court’s final

16

substantive order in this case was issued in January, 2011, and because the parties have previously

17

sought and received many extensions of time to file these briefs, the Court was unwilling to set the

18

hearing so far in the future. Accordingly, the Court moved the hearing date up to September 2, 2011,

19

with opposition briefs due August 1, 2011 and reply briefs due August 8, 2011.

20

Counsel now seek an order moving the hearing back to where they had set it, on October 7,

21

2011.1 They also seek a briefing schedule such that defendants’ opposition briefs would be due

22

September 16, 2011, and plaintiffs’ reply briefs would be due September 30, 2011.

23

The reasons for the requested delay are two-fold. On the one hand, the parties state that they

24

wish to engage in further “discussions” to “reach an agreement on attorneys’ fees and costs,” if

25

possible.2 On the other hand, counsel for the Federal Defendants has several other briefs due and

26
1

27
2

28

“Or at the next suitable date on the Court’s calendar” – presumably even later.

This is the same reason given on each of the three prior occasions that the parties sought
extensions of the filing deadline.

1

hearings set before August 1, 2011, “so responding to Plaintiffs’ motions and extensive supporting

2

documentation on that date would be exceptionally difficult.”3

3

In light of counsels’ schedule, the Court will modify the briefing in this case as follows:

4

Defendants’ opposition briefs due

August 17, 2011

5

Plaintiffs’ reply briefs due

August 29, 2011

6

Hearing

September 9, 2011

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: July 21, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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

3

“Recognizing the Court’s interest in resolving this matter expeditiously,” counsel suggest that
the Court impose a “deadline” of September 15, 2011 for the parties to reach agreement on fees and
costs, if possible; and that, if agreement is not possible, the Federal Defendants be required to file their
opposition briefs on September 16, 2011. This would appear to leave counsel for the Federal
Defendants one day to respond to plaintiffs’ “motions and extensive supporting documentation.”
2