The Sierra Club et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Filing 40

ORDER by Judge Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 39 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and in opposition to motion for judgment on the pleadings that is unopposed; declaration of counsel; proposed order Reply due by 5/1/2012. (rmm2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 David A. Bahr (Oregon Bar No. 90199) Bahr Law Offices, P.C. 1035 ½ Monroe Street Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 556-6439 davebahr@mindspring.com 8 Kristin Henry (California Bar. No. 220908) Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5716 Kristin.Henry@Sierraclub.org 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 13 Case No. C-11-0846-MEJ THE SIERRA CLUB and ENVIRONMENTAL 14 INTEGRITY PROJECT, 16 PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY BRIEF DEADLINE; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL; [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiffs, 15 vs. 17 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 Pursuant to this Court’s Order granting Defendant’s Second Unopposed Administrative Motion 22 To Augment Briefing Schedule, Dkt. 31, Plaintiffs’ summary judgment reply brief is due no later than 23 April 27, 2012. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), Plaintiffs now move for a modest en- 24 largement of time until Tuesday, May 1, 2012, in which to file its summary judgment reply brief. This 25 motion is supported by the Declaration of Counsel incorporated into this document. Infra. 26 27 28 A district court's decision regarding an extension of time lies well within its discretion. United States ex rel. Hawaiian Rock Prods. Corp. v. A.E. Lopez Enters., 74 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir.1996) (estabPLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY BRIEF DEADLINE; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1035 ½ Monroe Street Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 556-6439 1 2 3 4 5 6 lishing that such a decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion). For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs assert good cause exists to grant this request for an enlargement of time. 1. Unanticipated conflicts of schedule have recently arisen for Plaintiffs’ counsel that necessitate additional time to prepare Plaintiffs’ reply brief. Namely, Plaintiffs’ coun- 7 sel, David Bahr, on April 25, 2012, Mr. Bahr was unexpectedly called upon by a pre- 8 existing client to develop and implement a strategy to promptly intervene in a federal 9 “Reverse FOIA” case in which a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction 10 11 12 13 14 were filed on April 23, 2012. Because the motion to intervene has not yet been filed, attorney Bahr is not at liberty to provide additional information regarding this development. Attorney Bahr was also unexpectedly called upon to develop and submit two substantial administrative filings seeking review and reversal of agency decisions is- 15 sued under the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq.; 16 (1) Little Hocking Water District v. U.S.E.P.A, # HQ-FOI-01571-10 (filed April 25, 17 2012); (2) Sierra Club v. Internal Revenue Service, # F12074-0125 (filed April 16, 18 2012). Additionally, Mr. Bahr has also been required to review and analyze volumi- 19 nous document production in a FOIA case in support of a case status report that is due 20 21 May 1, 2012 in National Wildlife Federation v. United States Federal Emergency 22 Management Agency, Case No. 2:11-cv-00512-JLR (W.D.Wash.). Finally, Mr. Bahr 23 has been engaged in preparing a petition for cost and attorney fees and coordinating 24 supporting documentation that is due May 4, 2012 in Audubon Society of Portland v. 25 United States Natural Resources Conservation Service, Case No. 3:10-cv-01205-H 26 27 28 (D.Or.). 2. This request will not unreasonably delay final disposition of this case. The summary PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY BRIEF DEADLINE; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL; [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1035 ½ Monroe Street Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 556-6439 1 judgment argument date was recently continued by a week until May 17, 2012. Dkt. # 2 38. 3 3. No party will be disadvantaged by this enlargement of time. If this motion is granted, 4 with the recent continuance of the argument date, the parties and the Court will actu- 5 ally have more time between the filing of the reply brief and the hearing (16 days) 6 than under the schedule previously approved by the Court (13 days). 7 8 4. This is Plaintiffs’ first request for an enlargement of time in this case. 9 5. This request for enlargement is made in good faith and for no improper purpose. 10 6. On April 26, 2012, undersigned counsel conferred by email with Defendant’s counsel 11 regarding this motion. On April 27, 2012, Defendant notified the undersigned counsel 12 that it does not oppose this request. 13 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enlarge Plaintiffs’ time to file their 14 15 summary judgment reply brief until May 1, 2012. Respectfully submitted for the Court’s consideration, this 27th day of April, 2012. 16 17 __s/ David Bahr__________________ David Bahr (Oregon Bar No. 901990) Bahr Law Offices, P.C. 1035 ½ Monroe Street Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 556-6439 davebahr@mindspring.com 18 19 20 21 22 ____________________________________________________ 23 DECLARATION OF COUNSEL 24 1. 25 my personal knowledge and experience. 26 27 28 2. My name is David Bahr. I am plaintiffs’ lead counsel in this case. This declaration is based on Unanticipated conflicts have recently arisen in my schedule that necessitate additional time to prepare Plaintiffs’ reply brief. Namely, on April 25, 2012, I was unexpectedly called upon by a preexPLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY BRIEF DEADLINE; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL; [PROPOSED] ORDER 3 BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1035 ½ Monroe Street Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 556-6439 1 isting client to develop and implement a strategy to promptly intervene in a federal “Reverse FOIA” 2 case in which a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction were filed on April 23, 2012. Because 3 4 5 6 the motion to intervene has not yet been filed, I am not at liberty to provide additional information regarding this development. I was also unexpectedly called upon to develop and submit two substantial administrative filings seeking review and reversal of agency decisions issued under the federal Freedom 7 of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq.; (1) Little Hocking Water District v. U.S.E.P.A, # 8 HQ-FOI-01571-10 (filed April 25, 2012); (2) Sierra Club v. Internal Revenue Service, # F12074-0125 9 (filed April 16, 2012). Additionally, I have also been required to review and analyze voluminous docu- 10 11 12 13 14 ment production in a FOIA case in support of a case status report that is due May 1, 2012 in National Wildlife Federation v. United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, Case No. 2:11-cv00512-JLR (W.D.Wash.). Finally, I have been engaged in preparing a petition for cost and attorney fees and coordinating supporting documentation that is due May 4, 2012 in Audubon Society of Portland v. 15 United States Natural Resources Conservation Service, Case No. 3:10-cv-01205-H (D.Or.). 16 3. This is Plaintiffs’ first request for an enlargement of time in this case. 17 4. This request for enlargement is made in good faith and for no improper purpose. 18 5. On April 26, 2012, I conferred by email with Defendant’s counsel regarding this motion. 19 On April 27, 2012, Defendant notified me that it does not oppose this request. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of April, in Eugene, Oregon. __s/ David Bahr__________________ David Bahr (Oregon Bar No. 901990) Bahr Law Offices, P.C. 1035 ½ Monroe Street Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 556-6439 davebahr@mindspring.com 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 4 This Court, having considered Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Extend the Summary Judgment Reply Brief Deadline, and after considering the moving papers, arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to the Court, HEREBY FINDS AND ORDERS THAT: 5 6 Plaintiffs’ summary judgment reply brief shall be due no later than May 1, 2012. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED, this _____ day of April, 2012. 27th 9 10 11 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES Chief United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Presented by: __s/ David Bahr______________________ David Bahr (Oregon Bar No. 901990) Plaintiffs’ counsel [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 5

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?