The Wilderness Society et al v. United States Department of Interior et al

Filing 55

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; EXTENDING STAY Joint Status Conference Statement due by 8/19/2011. Status Conference set for 8/29/2011 10:00 AM before Hon. James Ware. Signed by Judge James Ware on 6/15/11. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 09-03048 JW

The Wilderness Soc’y, et al.,

11

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS
CONFERENCE; EXTENDING STAY

Plaintiffs,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
United States Dep’t of Interior, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

/
Presently before the Court is a Joint Status Report of the Parties.1 The parties filed their Joint

16

Status Report in response to the Court’s May 2, 2011 Order extending the stay in this case.2 In their

17

Joint Status Report, Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants contend that they have “achieved agreement

18

in principle on the substantive points of a proposed settlement agreement.” (Report at 2.) Plaintiffs

19

and Federal Defendants further contend that the only remaining issues are “largely procedural or

20

ancillary to the substance of the agreement,” and that they “believe they will be able to iron out

21

those ancillary issues relatively quickly,” at which point they “will be in a position to share the

22

proposed agreement with the [Intervenor-Defendants].” (Id.) Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants

23

contend that it is not necessary for the Court to schedule further proceedings at this time, as they are

24

“hopeful that they will soon conclude their settlement discussions successfully.” (Id.) In addition,

25
26
27

1

(Joint Status Report of the Parties Pursuant to the Court’s Order of May 2, 2011, hereafter,
“Report,” Docket Item No. 53.)
2

28

(Order Granting in part Parties’ Stipulation Further Extending Stay of Proceedings,
hereafter, “May 2 Order,” Docket Item No. 52.)

1

Intervenor-Defendants have also filed a Statement in which they contend that they have “not been

2

included in settlement discussions yet,” despite the Court’s order that Plaintiffs and Federal

3

Defendants “shall make every effort” to include Intervenor-Defendants in the settlement

4

discussions.3

5

Upon review, the Court finds good cause to extend the stay for purposes of completing a

6

settlement. With this Order, the Court has now issued seven Orders in this case extending the stay

7

of proceedings that has been in place since September 28, 2009. (May 2 Order at 1.) The Court has

8

issued those Orders in response to the parties’ contentions that an extended stay of proceedings

9

would “accommodate settlement negotiations.” (See, e.g., Docket Item No. 27 at 1.) However, the
Court is disinclined to stay this case yet again, should the parties be unable to reach a settlement

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

prior to August 19, 2011.

12
13

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the June 20, 2011 Status Conference and orders as
follows:

14

(1)

The stay of proceedings is extended until August 29, 2011;

15

(2)

On August 29, 2011 at 10 a.m., the Court will conduct a Status Conference re:

16

Settlement.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

(Intervenor-Defendants’ Status Conference Statement Pursuant to the Court’s Order of
May 2, 2011, Including Response to the Other Parties’ Joint Status Report at 2-3, Docket Item No.
54.)
2

1

(3)

On or before August 19, 2011, the parties shall file a Joint Status Conference

2

Statement which provides the Court with an update on settlement discussions,

3

including whether the parties have reached an agreement.4 If an agreement has not

4

been reached, the parties shall include in their Statement a good faith proposed

5

schedule as to how this case should proceed.

6
7
8

Dated: June 15, 2011
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

4

27

As discussed in the Court’s May 2 Order, Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants shall make
every effort to include Intervenor-Defendants in their settlement discussions, to the extent that those
discussions implicate the interests of Intervenor-Defendants. (May 2 Order at 1 n.2.)

28

3

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Amy Rae Atwood [e-mail]
David Bernard Glazer [e-mail]
Gregory C. Loarie [e-mail]
J. Michael Klise [e-mail]
James Stuart Angell [e-mail]
Meredith L. Flax [e-mail]

3
4
5
6

Dated: June 15, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

7
By:
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy