PENOBSCOT NATION v. SCHNEIDER et al

Filing 69

PROCEDURAL ORDER By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PENOBSCOT NATION,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JANET T. MILLS, et al.
Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-254-GZS

PROCEDURAL ORDER
In accordance with the February 13, 2014 Procedural Order, the Court held a conference
of counsel on March 11, 2014 to discuss the various pre-conference memoranda (ECF Nos. 62,
63, 65 & 66) filed by the parties. Attorney Kaighn Smith appeared for Penobscot Nation.
Attorney Steven Miskinis appeared for the United States. Attorneys Paul Stern, Gerald Reid &
Alice Sproul appeared for the State of Maine Defendants. Attorney Catherine Connors appeared
for the group of Intervenor Defendants (“State Intervenors” or “NPDES Permittees”).

As

explained at the end of the conference, the Court hereby ORDERS that the following procedure
be followed in order to queue up the issues for summary judgment and ensure that this case is
resolved expeditiously:
The prior discovery stay entered on February 13, 2014 is hereby lifted. The discovery
deadline is re-set for May 13, 2014. The parties are notified that the Court may deny requests to
further extend this deadline absent a showing of good cause and exceptional circumstances.
No later than May 28, 2014, the parties shall make a joint submission that indicates:
(1) which parties now intend to move for summary judgment;
(2) the legal issues that all parties agree are to be resolved by way of summary judgment;
(3) any other disputed issues that one or more parties believes must or could be resolved
via summary judgment;1

1

Parties who dispute that the Court can or should resolve that particular issue via summary judgment shall indicate
their opposing position and further specifically indicate whether they believe the issue involves disputes of fact
and/or should be deferred until after the contemplated motions for summary judgment are resolved.

(4) whether the parties have reached an agreement on any stipulations for purposes of
summary judgment;
(5) whether the parties have reached agreement on a joint record, the estimated length of
the joint record, and the proposed filing date for any joint record;
(6) the proposed filing dates for each motion as well as for any responses and replies to
each motion;
(7) the proposed page limits for each memorandum to be submitted in connection with
the summary judgment briefing;
(8) the proposed number of statements of material facts and additional statements of
material fact for each motion;
(9) an estimate of the number of additional pages of record any party anticipates filing in
support of any statement of material fact;
(10) whether any party anticipates requesting oral argument in connection with the
motion(s) for summary judgment.
After the Court reviews these joint submissions, it will determine whether it is necessary
to hold another conference of counsel. If the Court determines no additional conference is
necessary, it will issue a procedural order detailing the filing deadlines and page limits to be used
by the parties in briefing the contemplated motions for summary judgment.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 11th day of March, 2014.

2