Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-14/pdf.json

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

---

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ,

TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SACRAMENTO

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 

932676.1 -1-

Order Following January 26, 2010 Status Conference 

EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK, State Bar No. 119254

JON D. RUBIN, State Bar No. 196944 

DAVID A. DIEPENBROCK, State Bar No. 215679 

JONATHAN R. MARZ, State Bar No. 221188 

DIEPENBROCK HARRISON 

400 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 492-5000 

Facsimile: (916) 446-4535 

DANIEL J. O’HANLON, State Bar No. 122380 

K. ERIC ADAIR, State Bar No. 150650 

HANSPETER WALTER, State Bar No. 244847 

REBECCA R. AKROYD, State Bar No. 267305 

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 

A Professional Corporation 

400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814-4416 

Telephone: (916) 321-4500 

Facsimile: (916) 321-4555 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs SAN LUIS & DELTAMENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY and 

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CONSOLIDATED SALMON CASES CASE NOS.

1:09-cv-1053-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-1090-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-1378-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-1520-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-2452-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-1625-OWW-SMS 

ORDER FOLLOWING JANUARY 26, 

2010 STATUS CONFERENCE 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY, et al. v. GARY F. LOCKE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1053) 

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT v. 

NOAA, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1090) 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

GARY F. LOCKE, et al. 

(Case No. 1:09-cv-1378) 

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1520) 

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-2452) 

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. NMFS, et al. 

(Case No. 1:09-cv-1625) 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 192 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 3
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ,

TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SACRAMENTO

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 

932676.1 -2-

Order Following January 26, 2010 Status Conference 

The Court held a scheduling conference in this consolidated actions on January 26, 2010. 

Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District were 

represented by Daniel J. O’Hanlon, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard; plaintiffs 

Coalition for a Sustainable Delta and Kern County Water Agency were represented by Paul S. 

Weiland, Nossaman LLP; plaintiff Metropolitan Water District of Southern California was 

represented by Christopher J. Carr, Morrison & Forester LLP; plaintiff State Water Contractors 

was represented by Gregory K. Wilkinson, Best Best & Krieger LLP; plaintiff Stockton East 

Water District was represented by Jennifer L. Spaletta, Herum Crabtree; plaintiffs Oakdale 

Irrigation District et al. were represented by William C. Paris, O’Laughlin & Paris, LLP; real 

parties in interest California Department of Water Resources and its Director, Lester Snow, were 

represented by Deputy Attorney General Clifford Lee of the California Attorney General’s 

Office; the Federal Defendants were represented by Bridget Kennedy McNeil, United States 

Department of Justice; defendant-intervenors were represented by Michael R. Sherwood and 

Erin M. Tobin, Earthjustice; and defendant-intervenor Natural Resources Defense Council was 

represented by Katherine Poole. 

The purpose of the conference was to address the procedure related to whether to engage 

FRE 706 experts for these cases. In the Joint Scheduling Conference Order and Order 

Consolidating Cases filed September 25, 2009 (“Scheduling Order”; Doc. 51), the Court stated its 

intention “to provide notice to counsel concerning its decision whether a 706 expert is required in 

this case and the proposed terms on which the expert would serve on or before December 21, 

2009.” Doc. 51, pp. 22-24. However, as a result of various schedule changes and other 

developments, the Court has not yet done so. 

In addition, counsel for plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and 

Westlands Water District confirmed that they had provided the other parties with notice of an 

intention to seek a temporary restraining order against implementation of Action IV.2.3 of the 

biological opinion challenged in this action. The parties and the Court discussed the timing for 

briefing and a hearing regarding the anticipated motion for a temporary restraining order. 

After discussion with the parties, the Court HEREBY ORDERS THAT: 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 192 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 3
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ,

TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SACRAMENTO

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 

932676.1 -3-

Order Following January 26, 2010 Status Conference 

1. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District 

plaintiffs’application for a temporary restraining order shall be heard on February 2, 2010 

beginning at 1:00 p.m. Their papers filed in support of the application shall be filed by 10:00 

a.m. on January 27, 2010, and copies shall promptly be provided electronically to counsel for the 

defendants and the intervenor-defendants. Any papers filed by other parties who wish to join in 

support of the application shall be filed by 10:00 a.m. on January 28, 2010, and copies shall 

promptly be provided electronically to counsel for the Federal Defendants and the intervenordefendants. Any papers filed in opposition to the application shall be filed by noon on 

February 1, 2010, and copies shall promptly be provided electronically to counsel for the 

plaintiffs. 

2. The Court will provide parties with its tentative view regarding whether to retain 

one or more FRE 706 experts for these consolidated cases and the proposed terms on which the 

expert or experts would serve, and anticipates that it will do so by February 5, 2010. The parties 

may provide their response by February 16, 2010. 

3. The further scheduling of these consolidated cases will be addressed in the 

upcoming status conferences set for February 4, 2010 at 1 p.m. and March 1, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. 

DATED: January 29, 2010_______________ 

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

United States Senior District Court Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 192 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 3