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)

Download PDF
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?