Treez, Inc. et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 93

SCHEDULING ORDER (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2024)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TREEZ, INC., et al.,

Case No. 22-cv-07027-RS

Plaintiffs,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

SCHEDULING ORDER

12
13

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

A bench trial in this action under the Administrative Procedures Act is set for November

17

13, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., as provided in Dkt. No. 59. As reflected in that order and prior case

18

management orders, the parties are expected to proceed by way of cross-motions for summary

19

judgment, to be heard on the date set for trial. Absent unusual circumstances, the “trial” will

20

consist of attorney argument on the cross-motions, and will not include live witness testimony.

21
22
23
24
25

The operative briefing schedule set out in Dkt. No. 59 is:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment: September 18, 2024
Defendants’ Opposition and Cross-Motion: October 2, 2024
Plaintiffs’ Reply and Opposition: October 16, 2024
Defendants’ Reply, if any: October 23, 2024
Plaintiffs timely filed their motion for summary judgment on September 18, 2024. They

26

noticed it, however, for a hearing date in October, and included a briefing schedule in the docket

27

entry that is inconsistent with the operative schedule set out above. The putative October hearing

28

date is hereby vacated, and briefing and hearing on the cross-motions—i.e., the bench trial—shall

1

proceed as previously scheduled.
The court has been advised that an order is forthcoming from the assigned magistrate judge

2
3

requiring defendants to show cause before the undersigned why they should not be adjudged in

4

civil contempt. That matter shall be set for hearing on the date and at the time of the bench trial.

5

Plaintiffs appear to be contending that the administrative record remains incomplete. Their

6

motion for summary judgment, however, is premised on a contention that they are entitled to relief

7

even on the existing state of the record. If plaintiffs prevail on that point, the issue of whether

8

defendants must further supplement the administrative record likely will be moot.1 If the existing

9

administrative record does not compel a ruling in plaintiffs’ favor, the court will then address the

10

issue of further supplementation.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: September 26, 2024

15

______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The issue of potential sanctions, however, likely would not be moot.

28

CASE NO.

2

22-cv-07027-RS