Humboldt Baykeeper v. Royal Gold, LLC

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 12 extension of time. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER,

7

Case No. 16-cv-06285-RS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME

9
ROYAL GOLD, LLC,

10

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Defendant Royal Gold requests an extension of time to file its response to Plaintiff

13

Humbolt Baykeeper’s complaint. Royal Gold notes that Humbolt Baykeeper has filed a relevant

14

administrative challenge, which is set to be heard by the Humbolt County Board of Supervisors

15

(“Board of Supervisors”) on December 6, 2016. Royal Gold contends that the Board of

16

Supervisors is expected to vote on that challenge either at the hearing or shortly thereafter.

17

Humbolt Baykeeper opposes the extension citing concerns about its ability to begin discovery

18

during the “rainy season.” Good cause appearing, Royal Gold shall have until January 6, 2017 to

19

answer Humbolt Baykeeper’s complaint. In the future, the parties are encouraged to confer and

20

reach agreement about scheduling issues without expending judicial resources.1

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: December 5, 2016
______________________________________
______________
__
_________________________
__
_ _
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District J d
U i dS
Di i Judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

The parties are also encouraged to review the local rules; Royal Gold’s request was improperly
styled as an ex parte motion.