SF Bay Conservation and Development Commission v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al
Filing
45
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference previously set for 5/25/2017 Continued to 6/29/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Joint Case Management Statement is due on 6/22/2017. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/18/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
JOHN SAURENMAN
Senior Assistant Attorney General
DAVID G. ALDERSON
Acting Supervising Deputy Attorney General
TARA L. MUELLER
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 161536
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
P.O. Box 70550
Oakland, CA 94612-0550
Telephone: (510) 879-0754
Fax: (510) 622-2270
E-mail: Tara.Mueller@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff San Francisco Bay
Conservation & Development Commission
10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION,
Case No. C 3:16-CV-05420-RS
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE
Plaintiff, MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT AND ORDER
and
Date: May 25, 2017
SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER,
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Courtroom 3, 17th Floor
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
Action Filed: September 22, 2016
v.
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS;
LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD T. SEMONITE,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LIEUTENANT
COLONEL JOHN C. MORROW, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; AND DOUGLAS J. LAMONT,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR
CIVIL WORKS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
Defendants.
1
Stipulation to Continue CMC and [Proposed] Order (Case No. C 3:16-CV-95420-RS)
1
Plaintiff San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (“Commission”),
2
Plaintiff-Intervenor San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”), and Defendants United States Army
3
Corps of Engineers, Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Lieutenant Colonel John C. Morrow,
4
and Douglas J. LaMont (hereafter “Federal Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record,
5
hereby submit the following stipulation to continue the case management conference:
6
WHEREAS, this Court granted the motion to intervene of San Francisco Baykeeper as a
7
plaintiff-intervenor on April 25, 2017;
8
WHEREAS, Federal Defendants circulated to the Commission, who in turn circulated to
9
Baykeeper, a draft index to the administrative record on April 28, 2017;
10
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2017, the Commission and Baykeeper sent to Federal Defendants
11
a detailed list of general and specific questions concerning the scope and content of the draft
12
index to the administrative record;
13
WHEREAS, the Commission has informed the parties that it intends to move to file a
14
supplemental complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(d), and Federal
15
Defendants have agreed to consider stipulating to allow the Commission to file a supplemental
16
complaint, which will affect the scope and content of the administrative record;
17
WHEREAS, the parties have begun the process of discussing the scope and content of the
18
administrative record, the Commission’s proposed filing of a supplemental complaint and other
19
matters and have scheduled a further, more substantive discussion on the administrative record on
20
June 5, 2017;
21
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the parties have collectively determined that the best
22
course of action at this stage is to stipulate to continue the case management conference for
23
several weeks to allow the parties sufficient time to determine whether they will be able to reach
24
an agreement on the scope and content of the administrative record, or whether plaintiff and
25
plaintiff-intervenor will need to file a motion to supplement the administrative record, and for
26
Federal Defendants to determine whether they will agree to stipulate to the filing of the
27
Commission’s supplemental complaint or whether the Commission will need to file a motion to
28
supplement the complaint.
2
Stipulation to Continue CMC and [Proposed] Order (Case No. C 3:16-CV-95420-RS)
1
NOW THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING RECITALS, THE
2
PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
3
That the case management conference currently scheduled for May 25, 2017 at 10:00 am in
4
this Court be continued to June 29, 2017 at 10:00 am, or such other later date as may be
5
convenient for the Court, to allow the parties to continue to meet and confer regarding the scope
6
and content of the administrative record, the filing of a supplemental complaint and other issues
7
concerning this litigation, to ensure that the further case management conference is maximally
8
productive with respect to the issues to be decided at this stage of the litigation.
9
10
Dated: May 18, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
11
XAVIER BECCERA
Attorney General of California
12
13
14
16
/s/ Tara L. Mueller
TARA L. MUELLER
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiff San Francisco Bay
Conservation & Development Commission
17
SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER
15
18
/s/ Erica A. Maharg
ERICA A. MAHARG
Managing Attorney
Attorneys for Plaintiff- Intervenor San
Francisco Baykeeper
19
20
21
22
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
23
24
/s/ David B. Glazer
DAVID B. GLAZER
Attorneys for Defendants United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Todd T. Semonite, John
C. Morrow, and Douglas J. LaMont
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation to Continue CMC and [Proposed] Order (Case No. C 3:16-CV-95420-RS)
1
ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
2
Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation of the parties, the case management conference is
3
hereby continued to June 29, 2017 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 3. The parties’ joint case
4
management statement is due on or before June 22, 2017.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: May 18, 2017
Hon. Richard G. Seeborg
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stipulation to Continue CMC and [Proposed] Order (Case No. C 3:16-CV-95420-RS)
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?