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