Western Exploration LLC et al v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al
Filing
47
ORDER allowing supplemental briefing re 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief due within 10 days. Responses due 10 days thereafter. Reply brief due 5 days following filing of response.) Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/19/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
9
10
11
12
13
WESTERN EXPLORATION, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00491-MMD-VPC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
On November 17 and 18, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for
16
Preliminary Injunction. The Court had limited the scope of the hearing to testimony and
17
arguments relevant to the four Plaintiffs who filed the Motion. (Dkt. no. 36.) The Court,
18
however, allowed Plaintiffs to offer evidence relating to the public interest prong of the
19
preliminary injunction inquiry, including testimony about a proposed water storage tank
20
in the Baker community of White Pine County, Nevada.
21
The water tank issue was raised for the first time in Plaintiffs' reply brief and, in
22
light of the Court's earlier Order, it was only briefly discussed at the hearing. (See dkt.
23
no. 32 at 9.) Plaintiffs also offered an exhibit alongside their reply brief, which asserts
24
that the Baker community is currently foreclosed from building the urgently needed
25
storage tank. (Dkt. no. 32-3.) But the exhibit raises more questions than it answers. For
26
example, it is not clear (1) whether any evidence supports the exhibit's assertion that
27
the water tank was expected to receive a categorical exclusion to environmental review;
28
(2) what environmental review process the water tank now requires because of the Plan
1
Amendments, the status of such review, and the resulting delay, if any; (3) whether the
2
delay described in the exhibit was caused by the Plan Amendments and not the other
3
review requirements listed in the exhibit; (4) whether any evidence shows that the
4
requirements imposed by the Plan Amendments would affect the project's timeline; and
5
(5) when, specifically, the project was expected to be completed.
6
Because Plaintiffs assert that the water tank is urgently needed, the Court will
7
allow Plaintiffs to submit a supplemental brief of no more than ten (10) pages to argue
8
that White Pine County can demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits with
9
regard to the water storage tank. Plaintiffs will have up to ten (10) days from the date of
10
this Order to file their supplemental brief. Defendants will have up to ten (10) days
11
following the date of Plaintiffs' filing to file a response. Defendants' response may not
12
exceed ten (10) pages. Plaintiffs will have up to five (5) days following Defendants' filing
13
to file a reply brief of no more than five (5) pages.
14
DATED THIS 19th day of November 2015.
15
16
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?