Oceana, Inc. v. Bryson et al
Filing
36
STIPULATION AND ORDER RESETTING CMC TO 10/26/12 re 35 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Oceana, Inc. Case Management Statement due by 10/19/2012. Case Management Conference set for 10/26/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/26/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2012)
5
ANDREA A. TREECE, SB No. 237639
atreece@earthjustice.org
MICHAEL R. SHERWOOD, SB No. 63702
msherwood@earthjustice.org
Earthjustice
50 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 217-2000
Fax: (415) 217-2040
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1
2
3
4
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
OCEANA, Inc., a non-profit organization,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN E. BRYSON, in his official capacity as
)
Secretary of Commerce; NATIONAL OCEANIC )
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; and )
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
and
)
)
CALIFORNIA WETFISH PRODUCERS ASS’N, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendant-Intervenors
)
)
Case No. 3:11-cv-06257 EMC
JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF
SCHEDULING ORDER
and
[PROPOSED] ORDER
20
21
Plaintiff Oceana (“Plaintiff”), Federal Defendants John E. Bryson, in his official capacity as
22
Secretary of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National
23
Marine Fisheries Service (“Federal Defendants”), and Defendant-Intervenors the California Wetfish
24
Producers Association et al. (“Defendant-Intervenors”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby
25
jointly stipulate to the following schedule for the resolution of this lawsuit. Plaintiff’s First
26
Amended Complaint alleges that the Federal Defendants’ authorization and promulgation of
27
regulations implementing Amendment 13 to the U.S. West Coast Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery
28
Management Plan violates the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER – 3:11-cv-06257
1
1
National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and Administrative Procedure Act.
2
The parties anticipate that Plaintiff’s claims will be resolved on cross-motions for summary
3
judgment on the basis of the administrative record. See Civil L.R. 16-5; Civil L.R. 56. Accordingly,
4
the parties propose the following schedule for the filing of Defendant-Intevenors' Answer to
5
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, resolving any disputes regarding the completeness of the
6
administrative record, and briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment:
7
8
9
1.
Defendant-Intervenors' Answer. Defendant-Intervenors shall file their Answer to
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on or before May 10, 2012.
2.
Disputes Regarding the Administrative Record. On or before May 11, 2012, the
10
parties shall notify the Court whether they are in agreement that the administrative record is
11
complete, whether they intend to move this Court to resolve any disputes regarding the completeness
12
of the record, or whether they intend to move this Court for leave to submit extra-record materials.
13
If either party determines that a motion regarding the completeness of the administrative record or
14
the need for extra-record review is necessary, that party shall file the motion on or before May 25,
15
2012. Briefing on any such motion shall proceed in accordance with Civil L.R. 7.
16
3.
Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule. Due to the complexity of the claims and
17
the anticipated size of the administrative record, the parties propose the following extended schedule
18
and page limits for summary judgment briefing:
19
(a)
Plaintiff shall file for summary judgment not later than 45 days following the date the
20
record for judicial review is determined to be complete, either by stipulation of the
21
parties or pursuant to an Order of the Court resolving any dispute regarding the
22
completeness of the administrative records and/or the need for extra-record review.
23
Plaintiff’s initial summary judgment brief shall not exceed 45 pages.
24
(b)
Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall file their opposition to the
25
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment
26
not later than 35 days following the filing of Plaintiff’s motion. Federal Defendants’
27
and Defendant-Intervenors’ initial briefs shall not exceed 45 pages each.
28
JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER – 3:11-cv-06257
2
1
(c)
Plaintiff shall file its opposition to Federal Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’
2
cross-motions and reply brief not later than 30 days following the filing of the cross-
3
motion. Plaintiff’s combined opposition and reply shall not exceed 40 pages.
4
(d)
Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall file their reply briefs not later
5
than 21 days after the filing of Plaintiffs’ combined opposition and reply. Federal
6
Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ reply briefs shall not exceed 25 pages each.
7
4.
Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment. In keeping with the Court’s
8
regularly scheduled civil law-and-motion calendar, the parties suggest that the Court schedule the
9
hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment for October 26, November 2, or November 9,
10
11
whichever is more convenient for the Court.
Because the above schedule provides for the efficient resolution of this lawsuit, the parties
12
respectfully submit that good cause exists for granting this motion and adopting the parties’
13
proposed schedule as an Order of the Court. The parties further submit that because the above
14
schedule would govern the remainder of proceedings in this case, the Court’s adoption of the
15
schedule would obviate the need for the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for
16
May 18, 2012, as well as the submission of a separate Case Management Statement. A proposed
17
Order is attached.
18
DATED: April 26, 2012
19
20
21
22
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael R. Sherwood
ANDREA A. TREECE, SB No. 237639
MICHAEL R. SHERWOOD, SB No. 63702
Earthjustice
50 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-2000
Facsimile: (415) 217-2040
23
Attorneys for Plaintiff
24
25
26
27
28
IGNACIA S. MORENO
Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Kevin W. McArdle (as authorized 4/26/12)
KEVIN W. McARDLE (D.C. Bar No. 454569)
United States Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER – 3:11-cv-06257
3
1
2
3
Wildlife & Marine Resources Section
601 D Street, N.W., Room 3034
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel: (202) 305-0219
Fax: (202) 305-0275
E-mail: kevin.mcardle@usdoj.gov
4
5
6
7
8
RACHEL K. BOWEN (Admitted to the Maryland Bar)
United States Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Natural Resources Section
601 D Street, N.W., Room 3204
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel: (202) 616-4119
Fax: (202) 305-0506
E-mail: rachel.bowen@usdoj.gov
9
Attorneys for Defendants
10
11
FOR THE DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS:
12
/s/ George J. Mannina, Jr. (as authorized on 4/26/12)
ASHLEY J. REMILLARD (CA-252374)
aremillard@nossaman.com
NOSSAMAN LLP
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 833-7800
Facsimile: (949) 833-7878
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
GEORGE J. MANNINA, JR., pro hac vice
gmannina@nossaman.com
NOSSAMAN LLP
1666 K Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 887-1400
Facsimile: (202) 466-3215
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER – 3:11-cv-06257
4
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
Upon consideration of the parties' Stipulation as set out above, and good cause appearing, it
3
is hereby
4
ORDERED that:
5
1.
6
before May 10, 2012.
7
2.
8
that the administrative record is complete, whether they intend to move this Court to resolve any
9
disputes regarding the completeness of the record, or whether they intend to move this Court for
Defendant-Intervenors shall file their Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on or
On or before May 11, 2012, the parties shall notify the Court whether they are in agreement
10
leave to submit extra-record materials.
11
3.
12
record or the need for extra-record review is necessary, that party shall file the motion on or before
13
May 25, 2012.
14
4.
15
briefing:
16
If either party determines that a motion regarding the completeness of the administrative
The parties shall comply with the following schedule and page limits for summary judgment
(a)
Plaintiff shall file for summary judgment not later than 45 days following the date the
17
record for judicial review is determined to be complete, either by stipulation of the
18
parties or pursuant to an Order of the Court resolving any dispute regarding the
19
completeness of the administrative records and/or the need for extra-record review
20
brought. Plaintiff’s initial summary judgment brief shall not exceed 45 pages.
21
(b)
Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall file their oppositions to the
22
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and cross-motions for summary judgment
23
not later than 35 days following the filing of Plaintiff’s motion. Federal Defendants’
24
and Defendant-Intervenors’ initial briefs shall not exceed 45 pages each.
25
(c)
Plaintiff shall file its opposition to Federal Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’
26
cross-motions and reply brief not later than 30 days following the filing of the cross-
27
motion. Plaintiff’s combined opposition and reply shall not exceed 40 pages.
28
JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER – 3:11-cv-06257
5
1
(d)
Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall file their reply briefs not later
2
than 21 days after the filing of Plaintiffs’ combined opposition and reply. Federal
3
Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ reply briefs shall not exceed 25 pages each.
7
8
DATED:
6. When Plaintiff files its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff shall notice
a hearing date for said motion; the hearing date shall be at least 14 days after the
date on which Defendants' and Defendant-Intervenors' reply briefs will be due
pursuant to the above briefing schedule.
April 26, 2012
11
12
16
DERED
SO OR ED
IT IS
DIFI
AS MO
dward
Judge E
ER
H
15
RT
14
United States District Judge
NO
13
UNIT
ED
10
RT
U
O
S
9
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA HON. EDWARD M. CHEN
M. Che
R NIA
IT IS SO ORDERED.
n
FO
6
LI
5
5.
The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for May 18, 2012 is hereby vacated.
rescheduled for October 26, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. A joint CMC Statement shall be filed by October 19, 2012.
A
4
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER – 3:11-cv-06257
6
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?