Guidiville Rancheria of California et al v. United States Of America et al

Filing 110

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 104 Joint Stipulation to Stay Briefing and Modify Briefing Schedule [AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT]. The Case Management Conference currently set for 6/5/2013 is CONTINUED to Monday, October 7, 2013 at 2:00pm. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 THE GUIDIVILLE RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA, AND UPSTREAM POINT MOLATE LLC, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 Case No.: 12-CV-1326 YGR ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING AND MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT vs. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, KEN SALAZAR, et al., And THE CITY OF RICHMOND, Defendants. And Counterclaims. The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Stay Briefing and Modify Briefing 17 Schedule. Having read the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing therefore, the Parties’ 18 stipulation is GRANTED. The Court therefore ORDERS as follows: 19 (1) Briefing on the Tribe’s Motions for Leave to Conduct Discovery to Supplement the 20 Administrative Record and to Compel the Federal Defendants to Complete the Administrative 21 Record (Dkt. Nos. 100-101) is STAYED pending decision on the Federal Defendants’ Motion to 22 Compel Return of the Inadvertently Disclosed Document (Dkt. No. 105). The Motion to Compel 23 Return (Dkt. No. 105) will be referred for decision to Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore by 24 separate order. 25 (2) Plaintiff Guidiville and the Federal Defendants shall jointly submit the “Disclosed 26 Document” and the CD containing an electronic version of the Disclosed Document, and shall file 27 an administrative motion to seal such documents, consistent with Local Rule 79-5, no later 28 than June 5, 2013. 1 2 (3) The briefing schedule is modified as follows: Federal Defendants’ Motion to Compel Return of the Inadvertently Disclosed Document Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition May 28, 2013 5 Federal Defendants’ Reply June 25, 2013 6 Plaintiffs’ Sur Reply None permitted absent further order of the Court Plaintiffs request Oral Argument on Federal Defendants’ Motion to Compel Return of the Inadvertently Disclosed Document. To be set by Magistrate Judge Westmore by notice from the Court Federal Defendants’ Consolidated Response to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel Complete And to Supplement The Record 14 days after court ruling on motion to compel Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support 14 days after Federal Defendants’ Response Oral Argument To be set by further notice from the Court Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Claims; 30 days after the Court’s order on Motions to Supplement the AR 30 days after Plaintiff’s Motion for summary judgment 14 days after Defendants’ Response is filed 14 days after Plaintiffs’ Reply is filed To be set by further notice from the Court 3 June 11, 2013 4 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Federal Defendants’ Response in Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion For Summary Judgment 20 Plaintiffs’ Reply 21 Federal Defendants’ Reply 22 23 Oral Argument 24 25 (4) The Federal Defendants may submit one consolidated Response to Tribe’s Motions for 26 Leave to Conduct Discovery to Supplement the Administrative Record and to Compel the Federal 27 Defendants to Complete the Administrative Record (Dkt. Nos. 100-101). 28 2 1 2 (5) The Case Management Conference currently set for Wednesday, June 5, 2013, is CONTINUED to Monday, October 7, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. 3 This Order terminates Docket No. 104. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 Date: May 31, 2013 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?