Water Supply and Storage Company, The v. United States Department of Agriculture et al
ORDER: SIXTH Amended Joint Case Management Plan, by Judge John L. Kane on 3/28/2014. (trlee, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-CV-02896-JLK
THE WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE COMPANY,
a Colorado Non-Profit Mutual Ditch and Reservoir Company.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.,
COLORADO TROUT UNLIMITED,
SIXTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF
AGENCY ACTION IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Attorneys for Petitioner The Water Supply and Storage Company
Howard Kenison, Esq.
Patrick G. Compton, Esq.
Lindquist & Vennum PLLP
600 17th Street, Suite 1800 South
Denver, Colorado 80202-5441
Attorneys for Respondents United States Department of Agriculture, Tom
Vilsack, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Maribeth
Gustafson, Glenn P. Casamassa, United States Department of the Interior,
Sally Jewell, United States National Park Service, and John Wessels
David Gehlert, Esq.
Natural Resources Section
Environment and Nat. Resources Div.
U.S. Department of Justice
999 18th Street South Terrace, Suite 370
Denver, Colorado 80294
Attorneys for Respondent-Intervenor Colorado Trout Unlimited (“CTU”):
David Glandorf, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4200
Denver, Colorado 80202-2642
Michael K. Murphy, Esq.
Jennifer A. Nelson, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
STATEMENT OF LEGAL BASIS FOR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The District Court has original jurisdiction over the claims alleged by WSSC pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (United States as a defendant), and 5
U.S.C. § 706 (Administrative Procedure Act). The Federal Respondents dispute that the
Court has jurisdiction with respect to WSSC’s Third Claim for Relief.
DATES OF FILING OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS
Date Petition for Review Was Filed:
WSSC’s operative pleading is its First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), which
was filed on November 9, 2011.
Date Petition for Review Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office:
WSSC’s Complaint was served on the U.S. Attorney’s Office on November 10,
Date Answer or Other Response Was Filed:
The Federal Respondents filed their Answer (“Answer”) on January 9, 2012.
CTU’s Answer was accepted for filing on January 26, 2012.
STATEMENT(S) REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL
CLAIMS OR DEFENSES
This case does not present any unusually complicated or out-of-the-ordinary claims, such
as constitutional challenges to a statute or regulation, alleged due process violations, or requests
for emergency relief.
PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Deadline for Filing Administrative Record:
March 26, 2012.
The administrative record was filed on March 26, 2012. The Federal Respondents
amended the administrative record on May 1, 2012 and June 13, 2013. The Parties filed a notice
to supplement the Administrative Record with transcripts of two depositions authorized by the
Court through its November 16, 2012 Order Granting WSSC’s Motion for Limited Discovery
[Doc. No. 49], on July 19, 2013.
Deadline for Parties to Confer on Record Disputes:
July 24, 2012.
Deadline for Filing Motions to Complete and/or Supplement the
August 7, 2012.
WSSC’s Opening Brief was filed Tuesday, January 21, 2014. The Opening Brief
will generally conform to the requirements of Fed. R. App. Rules 28 and 32, and 10th Cir.
R. 28 and 32, with the exception that the Opening Brief may contain up to 18,500 words.
The Federal Respondents’ Response Brief will be due Wednesday, April 23, 2014.
CTU’s Response Brief will be due Monday, May 5, 2014. Each Response Brief will
generally conform to the requirements of Fed. R. App. Rules 28 and 32, and 10th Cir. R.
28 and 32, with the exception that Federal Respondents Response Brief may contain up
to 18,500 words and CTU’s Response Brief may contain up to 11,000 words.
Reply Brief and Supplemental Brief:
WSSC’s Reply Brief will be due Wednesday, June 18, 2014, and the Federal
Respondents may file a Supplemental Brief, on or before June 18, 2014, solely limited to
responding to arguments presented by CTU in its Response Brief. WSSC’s Reply Brief
and any Supplemental Brief filed by the Federal Respondents will generally conform to
the requirements of Fed. R. App. Rules 28 and 32, and 10th Cir. R. 28 and 32 applicable
to reply briefs, with the exception that WSSC’s Reply Brief may contain up to 15,000
words and Federal Respondents Supplemental Brief may contain up to 9,250 words.
STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
WSSC respectfully requests oral argument in this matter. This case may present
issues regarding the nature and breadth of the United States’ authority under the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 1765, et seq. (“FLPMA” or
“Act”) upon which the Court may find oral argument beneficial.
The Federal Respondents’ Statement:
The Federal Respondents join in WSSC’s Statement Regarding Oral Argument
and request for oral argument.
CTU joins in WSSC’s Statement Regarding Oral Argument and request for oral
CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a United
States Magistrate Judge.
All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a
United States Magistrate Judge.
AMENDMENTS TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The parties acknowledge and agree that this Joint Case Management Plan may be altered or
amended only upon a showing of good cause.
DATED this 28th day of March, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/John L. Kane
John L. Kane, U.S. Senior District Judge
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?