Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-64/pdf.json

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

---

DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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 

{00306559; 2}

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION 

THE DELTA SMELT CASES 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY et al. v. SALAZAR et al. (Case 

No. 1:09-cv-407) 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

SALAZAR et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-422) 

COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE DELTA 

et al. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND 

WIDLIFE SERVICE et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv480) 

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT v. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-631) 

STEWART & JASPER ORCHARDS et al. v. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-892) 

1:09-cv-00407-OWW-GSA 

1:09-cv-00422-OWW-GSA 

1:09-cv-00631-OWW-GSA 

1:09-cv-00892-OWW-GSA 

PARTIALLY CONSOLIDATED WITH: 

1:09-cv-00480-OWW-GSA 

 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: 

EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL 

ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

Judge: Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

Date: Feb. 25, Mar. 1-2, 2011 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 841 Filed 02/25/11 Page 1 of 6
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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 

{00306559; 2} - 1 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, as identified below, hereby 

have met and conferred and hereby propose the following schedule for the hearing on Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Injunctive Relief scheduled for February 25, March 1-2, 2011: 

1. By agreement, the parties served and filed their respective witness and exhibit 

lists on Tuesday, February 22, 2011. The exhibit lists identified those exhibits to be used for 

each party’s case-in-chief and did not include exhibits that may be used for demonstrative, crossexamination and/or rebuttal purposes. The exhibit lists identified the Administrative Record cite 

for each exhibit from the Administrative Record. For exhibits not included within the 

Administrative Record, the parties served on each other copies of the exhibits by email with their 

exhibit lists or on disks served by overnight delivery for receipt on Wednesday, February 23, 

2011. The parties agree to label their exhibits numerically using the following number ranges: 

Plaintiffs: 0-500 

Federal Defendants: 501-1000 

Defendant-Intervenors: 1001-1500 

2. The parties have agreed to submit the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Strike on the 

papers unless the Court has questions for the parties. The parties respectfully request that the 

Court rule on those motions prior to commencement of argument and evidence on the Motion for 

Injunctive Relief. The parties propose that time set aside for consideration of the Motion to 

Strike, inclusive of the time for the Court to share its views on and rule on the motions, and 

subject to the Court’s concurrence, be from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on February 25. The time not 

used by the Court shall be divided evenly between (a) Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor on the 

one hand, and (b) Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors on the other hand. 

3. Based on the a court day of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day and the Court’s 

routine practice of scheduling one 15 minute break each morning, one 90 minute break at lunch, 

and one 15 minute break each afternoon, the parties anticipate that there will be 18.5 court hours, 

after the Motion to Strike, for evidence and argument. Therefore, each side will be allocated a 

total of 9 hours, 15 minutes to be used by each side in its discretion among opening statements, 

arguments, and direct, cross and rebuttal examinations, subject to (1) the witness availability 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 841 Filed 02/25/11 Page 2 of 6
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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 

{00306559; 2} - 2 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

issues that are included in the order of witnesses below and (2) not exceeding the total hours per 

side per case. Any party may at its sole discretion cede all or a portion of its time to any other 

party. 

4. The following is the order of opening statements, witnesses and closing 

arguments. This has been set based on the parties’ best estimates of time for examinations. If 

the examination of any witness finishes early, the next witness in order will be called to testify, 

regardless of the date scheduled below, except that (1) per Court order, James Snow shall testify 

on March 1 and Dr. Kenneth Burnham shall testify on March 2, and (2) per witness availability, 

Dr. Christina Swanson shall not testify on March 2. 

Friday, February 25, 2011

• Opening Statements 

• Terry Erlewine 

• Paul Fujitani 

• Dr. Richard Deriso 

• Dr. Charles Hanson 

March 1, 2011

• James Snow (must testify this day, per Court order) 

• Dr. Christina Swanson (must testify this day per witness availability) 

• Dr. Ken Newman 

• Dr. Jennifer Norris 

March 2, 2011

• Dr. Matthew Nobriga 

• Dr. Kenneth Burnham 

• Plaintiff rebuttal witnesses 

• Closing Arguments 

5. In addition to the foregoing live testimony, the parties further stipulate that the 

following witnesses may testify via their previously submitted declarations and that the parties 

will not raise a hearsay objection against the admissibility of such declarations on the grounds 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 841 Filed 02/25/11 Page 3 of 6
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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 

{00306559; 2} - 3 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

that the declaration is a statement that was made other than while testifying at the trial or 

hearing: Todd Allen, Joe Del Bosque, Russ Freeman, Chris Hurd, Daniel G. Nelson, Andy 

Souza, and Jeffrey Michael. In so stipulating, the parties against whom the declarations have 

been offered do not stipulate that the facts stated within the declarations are undisputed or waive 

any other evidentiary objections. 

SO STIPULATED

Dated: February 24, 2011 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & 

GIRARD, A Law Corporation 

DIEPENBROCK HARRISON 

A Professional Corporation 

By: /s/_[Eileen M. Diepenbrock]______________ 

EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY AND WESTLANDS WATER 

DISTRICT 

Dated: February 24, 2011 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP

By: : /s/_[Steve O. Sims] (as authorized)

STEVE O. SIMS 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 

Dated: February 24, 2011 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

By: /s/ [Gregory K. Wilkinson](as authorized)

GREGORY K. WILKINSON 

STEVEN M. ANDERSON 

PAETER E. GARCIA 

MELISSA R. CUSHMAN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 841 Filed 02/25/11 Page 4 of 6
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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 

{00306559; 2} - 4 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Dated: February 24, 2011 NOSSAMAN LLP

By: /s/ [Paul S. Weiland](as authorized)_______ 

ROBERT D. THORNTON 

PAUL S. WEILAND 

AUDREY HUANG 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE DELTA 

and KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY 

Dated: February 24, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/_[Christopher J. Carr](as authorized)______ 

CHRISTOPHER J. CARR 

WILLIAM M. SLOAN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

THE METROPOLITAN WATER 

DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

Dated: February 24, 2011 KAMALA D. HARRIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

By: /s/ [Cecilia L. Dennis](as authorized)_

CLIFFORD T. LEE 

CECILIA L. DENNIS 

MICHAEL M. EDSON 

ALLISON GOLDSMITH 

Deputies Attorney General 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-In-Intervention 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

WATER RESOURCES 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 841 Filed 02/25/11 Page 5 of 6
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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 

{00306559; 2} - 5 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Dated: February 24, 2011 IGNACIA S. MORENO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

GENERAL 

United State Department of Justice, 

Environmental & Natural Resources Division 

JEAN E. WILLIAMS, CHIEF 

By: /s/_[Ethan Carson Eddy]_(as authorized)___ 

ETHAN CARSON EDDY, Trial Attorney 

Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 

Attorneys for FEDERAL DEFENDANTS 

Dated: February 24, 2011 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

By: : /s/_[Katherine Poole]_(as authorized)____ 

KATHERINE POOLE 

DOUG OBEGI 

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL 

Dated: February 14, 2011 THE BAY INSTITUTE

By: /s/_[Trent W. Orr] (as authorized)________ 

TRENT W. ORR 

GEORGE M. TORGUN 

Attorneys For Defendant-Intervenor 

THE BAY INSTITUTE 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 25, 2011 _/s/ OLIVER . W. WANGER__________

 THE HONORABLE OLIVER W. WANGER 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 841 Filed 02/25/11 Page 6 of 6