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)
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?