Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01619/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01619-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE AMERICAN HONEY PRODUCERS )

ASSOCIATION, INC., an )

Oklahoma corporation, )

et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) 

)

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF AGRICULTURE, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:05-cv-01619-REC-SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

Judgment Filing Deadline:

7/14/06

Defendant’s Opposition &

Cross-Motion Filing Deadline:

8/18/06 

Plaintiffs’ Reply & Opposition

Filing Deadline: 9/8/06

Defendant’s Reply Filing

Deadline: 10/6/06

Summary Judgment Hearing:

10/23/06, 1:30pm, Ctrm. 3/OWW 

Pre-Trial Conference Date:

Counsel stipulate to set IF

case not resolved on summary

judgment.

Trial Date: Counsel stipulate

to set IF case not resolved on

summary judgment.

1. Date of Scheduling Conference:

March 16, 2006.

//

Case 1:05-cv-01619-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 8
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

2. Appearances of Counsel:

Brian C. Leighton, Esq., appeared on behalf of plaintiff.

Assistant United States Attorney Brian W. Enos appeared

(in the place and instead of Assistant United States Attorney

Kristi C. Kapetan) on behalf of defendant USDA.

3. The Pleadings:

A. Summary of the Pleadings.

Plaintiff, the American Honey Producers Association,

Inc., is an association of honey producers, including the other

plaintiffs named in the complaint, representing approximately 800

honey producers across the United States with more than fifty

percent (50%) of the honey production produced in the United

States. Congress passed the Honey Research, Promotion and Consumer

Information Act (7 U.S.C. § 4601) which defendant oversees. The

individual plaintiffs and the Association’s members produce honey,

deliver their honey to the relatively few honey packers that exist

who then deduct assessments from the producers, pay it to the

National Honey Board which then engages in primarily speech-related

activities like promotion, advertising, and consumer education.

Plaintiffs challenge the National Honey Act, the National Honey

Board, and the assessments imposed for same on the grounds that

plaintiffs’ free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment

of the United States Constitution are being violated. Plaintiffs

were required to exhaust administrative remedies before the USDA,

which plaintiffs did, and the Administrative Law Judge and the

Judicial Officer both ruled that there is no violation because the

speech in question amounts to “government speech” as defined

recently by the U.S. Supreme Court in Johanns v. Livestock

Case 1:05-cv-01619-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 8
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

3

Marketing Association, et al, __ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2055 (2005).

Plaintiffs disagree and have filed this suit challenging

defendant’s ruling.

Defendant believes this case is governed by the

decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Johanns and therefore

believes that there is no violation. In particular, the Government

contends that all of the speech at issue in this case is government

speech and there is therefore no violation of plaintiffs’ First

Amendment rights.

B. Orders Re: Amendment of Pleadings.

No amendments are proposed at this time.

4. Factual Summary:

A. Admitted Facts which are deemed proven without 

further proceedings.

(1) Plaintiffs object to their assessments being

used by the National Honey Board for speech-related purposes.

B. Contested Facts.

(1) The degree of control that defendant has over

the speech at issue.

(2) Whether speech is attributed to plaintiffs or

honey producers.

(3) Whether the Secretary of USDA approves every

word for it to constitute government speech.

(4) Whether government speech is implicated in this

case.

(5) Whether plaintiffs have exhausted any and all

required administrative remedies before the USDA.

//

Case 1:05-cv-01619-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/17/06 Page 3 of 8
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

4

(6) Whether the predominant purpose of the Honey

Board is to engage in speech-related activities like promotion,

marketing, consumer education, advertising, trade negotiations, and

government relations.

(7) Whether the named plaintiffs all engage in the

production of honey and have assessments deducted from them by

their packers who remit the assessments to the National Honey

Board.

5. Legal Issues:

A. Uncontested.

(1) Jurisdiction

(2) Venue

B. Contested.

(1) The degree of control that the USDA has over

the speech at issue.

(2) Whether speech is attributed to plaintiffs or

honey producers.

(3) Whether the Secretary of USDA approves every

word for it to constitute government speech.

(4) Whether government speech is implicated in this

case.

(5) Whether plaintiffs have exhausted any and all

required administrative remedies before the USDA.

(6) Whether the predominant purpose of the Honey

Board is to engage in speech-related activities like promotion,

marketing, consumer education, advertising, trade negotiations, and

government relations.

//

Case 1:05-cv-01619-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/17/06 Page 4 of 8
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

5

(7) Whether the named plaintiffs all engage in the

production of honey and have assessments deducted from them by

their packers who remit the assessments to the National Honey

Board.

6. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction:

This case will not be assigned for all purposes,

including trial, to the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States

Magistrate Judge, as the parties do not so consent at this time.

7. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule:

Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions will be heard on October

23, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 3 on the Seventh Floor

before the Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge. Counsel

shall comply with Local Rule 78-230.

8. Pre-Trial Conference Date:

Not applicable at this time as counsel stipulate to set 

on a date certain at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 3 on the Seventh

Floor before the Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge, IF

the is case not resolved on summary judgment.

9. Court Trial Date:

Not applicable at this time as counsel stipulate to set 

on a date certain at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 3 on the Seventh

Floor before the Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge, IF

the case is not resolved on summary judgment.

10. Settlement Conference:

Should the parties desire a Settlement Conference, they

will jointly request one of the Court, and one will be arranged. 

In making such a request, the parties are directed to notify the

Court as to whether or not they desire the undersigned to conduct

Case 1:05-cv-01619-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/17/06 Page 5 of 8
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

6

the Settlement Conference or to arrange for one before another

judicial officer.

11. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master,

or other Techniques to Shorten Trial:

Not applicable at this time.

12. Related Matters Pending:

There are no pending related matters.

13. Compliance with Federal Procedure:

The Court requires compliance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

District of California. To aid the Court in the efficient

administration of this case, all counsel are expected to

familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

California, and to keep abreast of any amendments thereto. The

Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to

efficiently handle its increasing caseload. Sanctions will be

imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided in both the

Fed.R.Civ.P. and the Local Rules.

14. Compliance with Electronic Filing Requirement:

On January 3, 2005, the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California became an electronic case

management/filing district (CM/ECF). Unless excused by the Court,

or by Local Rule, attorneys shall file all documents electronically

as of January 3, 2005 in all actions pending before the court.

While Pro Se Litigants are exempt from this requirement, the court

will scan in all documents filed by pro se litigants, and the

official court record in all cases will be electronic. Attorneys

Case 1:05-cv-01619-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/17/06 Page 6 of 8
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

7

are required to file electronically in pro se cases. More

information regarding the Court’s implementation of CM/ECF can be

found on the court’s web site at www.caed.uscourts.gov, including

the Court’s Amended Local Rules effective January 3, 2005, the

Court’s CM/ECF Final Procedures, and the Court’s CM/ECF User’s

Manual.

While the Clerk's Office will not refuse to file a

proffered paper document, the Clerk's Office will scan it and, if

improperly filed, notify the Court that the document was filed in

an improper format. An order to show cause (OSC) may be issued in

appropriate cases regarding an attorney's disregard for the

requirement to utilize electronic filing, or other violations of

these electronic filing procedures. See L.R. 11-110, L.R.

5-133(d)(3).

If counsel has not already done so, counsel must register

for CM/ECF as soon as possible. On-line registration is available

at www.caed.uscourts.gov. Once registered, counsel will receive a

login and password in approximately one (1) week. Counsel must be

registered to file documents on-line. See L.R. 5-135(g). Counsel

are responsible for knowing the rules governing electronic filing

in the Eastern District. Please review the Court’s Local Rules

effective January 3, 2005, available on the Court’s web site.

15. Effect of this Order:

The foregoing Order represents the best estimate of the

Court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to bring this case

to resolution. If the parties determine at any time that the

schedule outlined in this Order cannot be met, counsel are ordered

to notify the Court immediately so that adjustments may be made,

Case 1:05-cv-01619-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/17/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein

will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or

declarations and, where appropriate, attached exhibits which

establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT IN THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01619-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/17/06 Page 8 of 8