Center for Food Safety v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al

Filing 17

SCHEDULING ORDER. The case management schedule issued in C16-0950RSL (Dkt. # 21) is hereby VACATED. The following case management deadlines will govern both C16-950RSL and C17-1209RSL going forward. (See order for details.) Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

THE COALITION TO PROTECT PUGET
SOUND HABITAT,

No. C16-0950RSL

8

Plaintiff,
9

v.
10

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al.,
11

Defendants,
12

and
13

TAYLOR SHELLFISH COMPANY, INC.,
14

Intervenors.
15
16

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY,

17
18
19

Plaintiff,

No. C17-01209RSL
SCHEDULING ORDER

v.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al.,

20

Defendants.

21
22
23

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ “Stipulated Motion to
Consolidate Actions” filed in C16-0950RSL. Dkt. # 30. Having reviewed the motion
SCHEDULING ORDER

1

and the proposed order, it appears that the parties wish to have the two above-

2

captioned matters heard on a coordinated schedule, but are not requesting that they be

3
4

consolidated into a single cause number with a single operative pleading. To that
extent, the motion is GRANTED.

5

The case management schedule issued in C16-0950RSL (Dkt. # 21) is hereby
6

VACATED. In that matter, defendants have distributed copies of their 2012 and 2017
7
8
9

NWP administrative records to the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound. The Coalition
has reviewed the administrative records and represents that the records produced are,

10

to the best of its knowledge, complete and that other than submission of Standing

11

Declarations, the Coalition will not seek the admission of extra record evidence. The

12

following case management deadlines will govern both C16-950RSL and C17-

13

1209RSL going forward:

14
15
16

November 27, 2017
November 27, 2017

17
18

January 26, 2018

19
20
21

Defendants to lodge their administrative
record for the claims in C17-1209RSL
Defendants and Proposed Intervenor Pacific
Coast Shellfish Growers Association will
Answer or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint in C17-1209RSL
If no motion to dismiss is pending, Plaintiff
and Proposed Intervenor in C17-1209RSL
will identify for Defendants any issues
regarding completeness of the
administrative record and/or any issues
regarding the admission of extra record
evidence for non-ESA claims. 1 The parties

22
23

1

The parties disagree on the scope of judicial review for Plaintiff’s ESA claims. By
entering this stipulation, Defendants do not waive any argument regarding (i) the proper scope
SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

will attempt to negotiate a resolution should
a dispute arise. If a motion to dismiss is
pending, Plaintiff and Proposed Intervenor
in C17-1209RSL will identify for
Defendants any issues regarding
completeness of their administrative record
and/or any issues regarding the admission
of extra record evidence for non-ESA
claims within 30 days following the Court’s
disposition of the motion to dismiss.
30 days after parties complete review Deadline for motions regarding the AR in
C17-1209RSL, including any motion
of the Defendants’ AR and identify
any issues regarding completeness of regarding the completeness of the AR
and/or admission of extra record evidence
the AR and/or any admission of
for non-ESA claims. 2 If no such motions
extra record evidence for non-ESA
are filed, any challenges regarding the AR
claims
will be deemed waived.
45 days after AR is deemed complete Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment
due. 3 The motions will be noted for
by stipulation or Court order
consideration on the 28th Friday after filing.
Oppositions and cross-motions for
75 days after Plaintiffs’ motions for
summary judgment due. Defendants,
summary judgment are filed
Intervenor, and Proposed Intervenor shall
consult on briefing to avoid redundancy.
Plaintiffs’ replies and oppositions to cross75 days after oppositions and crossmotions due.
motions are filed
45 days after replies and oppositions Replies due. Defendants, Intervenor, and
Proposed Intervenor to consult on briefing
to cross-motions are filed
to avoid redundancy.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

of judicial review for Plaintiff’s ESA claims, or (ii) the propriety of considering extra-record
evidence related to Plaintiff’s ESA claims.
2

If any motion regarding the completeness of the Defendants’ administrative record is
made, Defendants will respond 30 days after such motion is lodged, and Plaintiff and/or
Proposed Intervenor shall file a Reply within 14 days following Defendants’ response.
3

Because the cases are not being consolidated, the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat is
not a party to C17-1209RSL, and Center for Food Safety is not a party to C16-0950RSL. While the
parties may, and are encouraged to, coordinate briefing efforts to improve efficiency and avoid
redundancy, each plaintiff must file papers in its own lawsuit.

SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2
3
4

Defendants, Intervenor, and Proposed Intervenor reserve the right to object to,
move to strike, or otherwise oppose the proposed introduction of any extra record
evidence in support of any claims made by any other party. Defendants, Intervenor,
and Proposed Intervenor are encouraged to file a single consolidated brief in each

5

action in response to the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment.
6
7

Dated this 7th day of November, 2017.

8

A
Robert S. Lasnik

9

United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
SCHEDULING ORDER