Our Children's Earth Foundation et al v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al

Filing 97

ORDER Requiring Response to Objection to Reply Evidence in Support of Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to a Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/8/16. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Christopher A. Sproul (Bar No. 126398)
Jodene L. Isaacs (Bar No. 226895)
Environmental Advocates
5135 Anza Street
San Francisco, California 94121
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: jisaacs@ enviroadvocates.com
Michael A. Costa (Bar No. 219416)
3848 Sacramento St. #2
San Francisco, CA 94118
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

10
11

OUR CHILDREN 'S EARTH FOUNDATION and
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION

12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
16

OUR CHILDREN 'S EARTH FOUNDATION,
non-profit corporation, and ECOLOGICAL
RIGHTS FOUNDATION, a non-profit corporation,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, BOB PERCIASEPE, Acting
Administrator, JARED BLUMENTHAL, Regional
Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 9, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE, REBECCA BLANK, as
Acting Secretary of Commerce, RODNEY
MCINNIS, as Regional Administrator of the
National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest
Region, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, KEN SALAZAR, as Secretary of the
Department of the Interior, REN LOHOEFENER
as Regional Administrator of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region,
Defendants.

Civil Case No.: 4:13-cv-2857-JSW-KAW
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’
REPLY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR DE
NOVO DETERMINATION OF
DISPOSITIVE MATTER REFERRED TO
A MAGISTRATE JUDGE
________________________________
Judge: Jeffrey S. White

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Having considered Plaintiffs’ OBJECTION TO REPLY EVIDENCE, Exhibit 1 to DEFENDANTS’

3

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION OF

4

DISPOSITIVE MATTER REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE (“Reply Motion”) (Dkt. 95-1) is hereby

5

7

stricken from the Record. Defendants shall file a response to the objection by 3:00 p.m. on March 11, 2016. At
that time the Court will determine whether it will strike the evidence, permit a
surreply or take some other action.
[Alternatively] Having considered Plaintiffs OBJECTION TO REPLY EVIDENCE above, Plaintiffs are

8

hereby granted a Surreply to address Defendants’ submission of new evidence in conjunction with their

9

Reply Motion. Plaintiffs shall have ___ days to submit a __ page surreply that addresses Defendants’

6

10

newly submitted evidence.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

March 8, 2016
Dated:________________

13

______________________________
HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Proposed Order on Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants’ Reply Evidence
CIV. NO.: 4:13-CV-2857-JSW-KAW

Page 2