Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04884/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04884-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, et

al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-4884 SI

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR A

SITE VISIT

The federal defendants have requested that the Court conduct a site visit to view areas of the

Western Mojave in connection with the briefing on an appropriate remedy. Plaintiffs have filed a

response to that request stating that while they do not believe a site visit is necessary, they do not oppose

a site visit. However, plaintiffs object to defendants’ proposed timing for such a visit (August or

September 2010), on the ground that due to extreme summer temperatures in August and September,

a site visit during this time would be “starkly unrepresentative” of conditions in the desert on a typical

weekend day during the OHV “season,” which begins later in the year.

The Court finds that a site visit is unnecessary for a determination of the appropriate remedy in

this case. The Court ruled on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment based upon the

extensive administrative record, and the parties’ briefing on remedial issues has been voluminous. The

Court believes that the briefing, administrative record, and argument of counsel at the September 3,

2010 hearing will provide a sufficient basis from which to make all decisions regarding the appropriate

Case 3:06-cv-04884-SI Document 234 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

remedy. In addition, the Court is concerned that any information gleaned during a site visit would

anecdotal and that, regardless of when the visit occurred, would not be “representative” of conditions

in one respect or another. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request for a site visit. (Docket No. 225).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04884-SI Document 234 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 2