Backcountry Hunters and Anglers v. United States Forest Service et al
ORDER granting 5 Motion to Intervene. Answer is to be entered, by Judge John L. Kane on 2/2/12.(gmssl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-03139-AP
BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS AND ANGLERS, Colorado Chapter,
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of
MARK STILES, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the San Juan National Forest;
THOMAS TIDWELL, in his official capacity as Chief of the United States Forest Service,
COLORADO OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE COALITION,
TRAILS PRESERVATION ALLIANCE,
SAN JUAN TRAIL RIDERS,
PUBLIC ACCESS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, and
THE BLUERIBBON COALITION
Defendant Intervenor Applicants.
This matter is currently before me on Proposed Defendant Intervenors Colorado Off
Highway Vehicle Coalition, Trails Preservation Alliance, San Juan Trail Riders, Public Access
Preservation Association, and the Blueribbon Coalition’s Motion to Intervene (doc. 5). After
carefully considering the motion and the accompanying brief in support and applying the legal
standards set forth by the Tenth Circuit in San Juan County, Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d
1163, 1188 (10th Cir. 2007)(en banc), I am persuaded to GRANT the motion. The clerk shall
enter the answer attached as Exhibit 1 to their Motion to Intervene.
Defendant Intervenors’ participation is not, however, without limitation. Defendant
Intervenors’ participation will be limited in this appeal in the interest of the efficient conduct of
the proceedings. Rule 24(a)(2)’s “reference to practical consideration in determining whether an
applicant can intervene implies that those same considerations can justify limitations on the
scope of intervention.” San Juan County, 503 F.3d at 1189. “[I]ntervention of right under the
amended rule may be subject to appropriate considerations or restrictions responsive among
other things to the requirements of efficient conduct of the proceedings.” Id. (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24 Advisory Committee Notes (1966 Amendment)).
Accordingly, counsel for Defendants and counsel for Defendant Intervenors must confer
before filing any motion, responsive filing, or brief to determine whether their positions may be
set forth in a consolidated fashion. Defendant Intervenors may file separate motions, responsive
filings, or briefs only to raise arguments or issues Defendants decline to raise in their filings.1
Those arguments must be limited to the claims raised by the original parties; arguments relating
to collateral issues will be stricken as immaterial. Any separate filings must include a Certificate
of Compliance, confirming compliance with this conferral requirement. The Certificate of
Compliance should also include a statement that the Defendant’s position does not adequately
cover the issues they seek to raise.
Dated: February 2, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ John L. Kane
Senior U.S. District Court Judge
I decline to address the timing of Defendant Intervenors’ filing. The parties should
address such issues in their Joint Case Management Plan.
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?