Kennett, City Of v. Environmental Protection Agency

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the EPA's requested staggered summary judgment schedule is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file its motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum (not exceeding 35 pag es) and affidavits no later than January 15, 2016. Defendant shall file its cross-motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum (not to exceed 35 pages) and affidavits no later than April 14, 2016. Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of its motion and its opposition to defendants cross-motion (not to exceed 25 pages) as well as any supporting rebuttal affidavits no later than June 13, 2016. Defendant shall file its reply memorandum (not to exceed 25 pages) and rebuttal affidavits no later than August 12, 2016. Any sur-memoranda must be filed no later than September 2, 2016. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/19/15. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

CITY OF KENNETT, MISSOURI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL )
PROTECTION AGENTCY, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 1:14-CV-33-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint scheduling plan (#45) filed in
response to this Court’s order allowing plaintiff to file expert reports in support of its
motion for summary judgment. The parties disagree regarding the timing of the crossmotions for summary judgment. Plaintiff City of Kennett, Missouri, seeks simultaneous
briefing by each party such that each party files its motion and memorandum in response,
followed by simultaneous responses in opposition, and replies in support. Defendant, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), advocates for staggered
briefing and asks that the plaintiff file its motion and memorandum first, followed by
defendant’s response and memorandum in support of its own motion, the plaintiff’s reply
and response, and finally defendant’s reply. Plaintiff objects to defendant’s tactical
advantage resulting from the staggered schedule and observes that the original case
management order contemplated simultaneous briefing. That original case management

1

order, however, anticipated that the parties would be operating from a known
administrative record with any supplements being made well before the dispositive
motions were due. Now, the parties may file their expert reports with their motions. The
Court finds that a staggered briefing schedule --- resulting in only four total memoranda
instead of six memoranda contemplated by the simultaneous briefing schedule --- is
appropriate, particularly in light of the EPA’s defensive position facing the uncertainty of
numerous challenges to the TMDL. In addition, the Court notes that it will entertain
motions for sur-memoranda if necessary, which should address plaintiff’s other tactical
concerns.

2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the EPA’s requested staggered summary
judgment schedule is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file its motion for summary
judgment and supporting memorandum (not exceeding 35 pages) and affidavits no later
than January 15, 2016. Defendant shall file its cross-motion for summary judgment and
supporting memorandum (not to exceed 35 pages) and affidavits no later than April 14,
2016. Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of its motion and its opposition to
defendant’s cross-motion (not to exceed 25 pages) as well as any supporting rebuttal
affidavits no later than June 13, 2016. Defendant shall file its reply memorandum (not to
exceed 25 pages) and rebuttal affidavits no later than August 12, 2016. Any surmemoranda must be filed no later than September 2, 2016.
Dated this 19th day of October, 2015.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3