Bundorf et al v. Salazar et al

Filing 69

ORDER Granting 67 Motion to Extend Time to Respond/Reply to 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 53 Motion to Strike. Responses due by 5/30/2014. Replies due by 6/20/2014. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/22/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

Case 2:13-cv-00616-MMD-PAL Document 67 Filed 04/15/14 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DONNA M. WITTIG, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11015
E-mail: [e-mail]
COTTON, DRIGGS, WALCH,
HOLLEY, WOLOSON & THOMPSON
400 South Fourth Street, Third Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
702/791-1912
DAVID H. BECKER, ESQ., Pro Hac Vice
Oregon Bar No. 081507
E-mail: [e-mail]
Law Office of David H. Becker, LLC
833 SE Main Street # 302
Portland, OR 97214
[phone]
ERIN MADDEN, ESQ., Pro Hac Vice
Oregon Bar No. 044681
E-mail: [e-mail]
CASCADIA LAW, P.C.
833 SE Main Street # 318
Portland, OR 97214
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

16
Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

20
21

JUDY BUNDORF, et al.,
CASE NO.:

22
23
24

v.
S.M.R. JEWELL, et al.,
Defendants.

25
26
27
28

2:13-cv-616-MMD-PAL

Plaintiffs,

and
SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY, LLC

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AND REVISED
SCHEDULING ORDER
(Second Request)

Defendant-Intervenor

-1UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 2:13-cv-00616-MMD-PAL Document 67 Filed 04/15/14 Page 2 of 3

1
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(b) and Hon. Miranda Du’s Civil Standing Order, Plaintiffs
2
hereby request an extension of time to file their response/replies on summary judgment and their
3
response to Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt # 53) and for an Order setting a revised briefing
4
schedule. Plaintiffs request a four-week extension, such that their filings will all be due on May
5
30, 2014. Undersigned lead counsel (pro hac vice) for Plaintiffs has conferred with counsel for
6
Defendants and Intervenor, who have indicated that they concur in the proposed revised schedule
7
and do not oppose this motion.
8
There have been two previous extensions granted in this case; this is Plaintiffs’ second
9
request. The Court set a schedule for briefing cross-motions on summary judgment on July 25,
10
2013 (Dkt # 25). On September 17, 2013, Defendants lodged the administrative records of the
11
defendant agencies with the Court and served them on counsel for Plaintiffs. On November 22,
12
2013, Plaintiffs moved unopposed for an extension of the time to file their opening brief on
13
summary judgment and a revised scheduling order, which this Court granted on November 25,
14
2013 (Dkt # 33). Plaintiffs filed their opening summary judgment brief in accordance with the
15
revised scheduling order on January 31, 2014 (Dkt # 40). Defendants and Intervenor filed an
16
unopposed motion to extend by four weeks their time to cross-move and respond on March 11,
17
2014, which this Court granted the next day (Dkt # 52).
18
Under the current schedule, Plaintiffs’ response/replies on summary judgment are due on
19
May 2, 2014, and their response to the motion to strike is due on April 28, 2014. Undersigned
20
lead counsel for Plaintiffs’ will be in the field conducting surveys with other clients for the next
21
two weeks, and thereafter has several briefing deadlines in other matters scheduled in early- to
22
mid-May. The requested four-week extension is equivalent to the extension granted to the other
23
parties to file their responses and cross-motions in March.
24
There currently are no signed rights-of-way for the challenged industrial wind project,
25
and it does not appear that the project is likely to proceed in the near future. See
26
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/searchlight_wind_energy.html
27
(Searchlight Wind Energy Project official website, showing the two rights-of-way—Appendix A
28

-2UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 2:13-cv-00616-MMD-PAL Document 67 Filed 04/15/14 Page 3 of 3

1

and Appendix B under “Record of Decision”—as “pending,” more than eight months after the

2

Record of Decision was signed) (last visited April 15, 2014).
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request an extension of the time to file

3
4

their responsive briefs until May 30, 2014. The remaining requested extension dates are as

5

follows:

6

Event

Current Deadline

Requested Extension

7

Plaintiffs’ summary judgment response & reply:

May 2, 2014

May 30, 2014

8

Plaintiffs’ response to motion to strike

April 28, 2014

May 30, 2014

Federal Defendants’ (and intervenor’s) reply:

May 23, 2014

June 20, 2014

9
10
11
12

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant this
unopposed motion.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of April 2014.

13

18

/s David H. Becker
DAVID H. BECKER, ESQ., Pro Hac Vice
Oregon Bar No. 081507
E-mail: [e-mail]
Law Office of David H. Becker, LLC
833 SE Main Street # 302
Portland, OR 97214
[phone]

19

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14
15
16
17

20
21
22

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL
BE GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

23
24
25
26

__________________________________
Miranda M. Du
United States District Judge
April 22, 2014
DATED: __________________________

27
28

-3UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER