Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

GREGORY K. WILKINSON, Bar No. 054809

JAMES E. THOMPSON, Bar No. 041598

JENNIFER T. BUCKMAN, Bar No. 179143

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1650

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 325-4000

Telecopier: (916) 325-4010

E-Mail: gregory.wilkinson@bbklaw.com

E-Mail: james.thompson@bbklaw.com

E-Mail: jennifer.buckman@bbklaw.com

Attorneys for Friant Defendants

[Counsel of record listed on Appendix A]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KIRK RODGERS, a Regional Director of

the UNITED STATES BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. S-88-1658-LKK/GGH

STIPULATION AND ORDER

REGARDING SUBPOENA FOR

DOCUMENTS IN A CIVIL CASE

SERVED UPON THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF WATER

RESOURCES AND THE STATE

RECLAMATION BOARD, NON PARTIES 

Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton

ORANGE COVE IRRIGATION

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants-Intervenors.

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1256 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 3
The California Department of Water Resources and the State Reclamation Board

(collectively, the "State Agencies") and Defendant Friant Water Users Authority

("Friant") hereby stipulate as follows:

1. Friant has served subpoenas duces tecum on the State Agencies in the case

of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers, CIV–S-88- 1658 LKK/GGH. The

State Agencies are not parties to the litigation.

2. The State Agencies have expressed concern that the volume of documents

potentially responsive to the subpoenas is extensive. The State Agencies have therefore

asked, and Friant has agreed, to attempt to narrow the scope of the document requests. 

Friant and the State Agencies have agreed that their counsel will meet next week to

accomplish this task.

3. Friant and the State Agencies have agreed that the time for the State

Agencies to respond to the subpoenas shall be extended and the State Agencies do not

have to respond to the subpoenas by the dates indicated on the documents. Friant and the

State Agencies have agreed that a new response date will be set after counsel meet and

confer next week. Friant will make a reasonable attempt to accommodate the State

Agencies' request for more time, within the constraints imposed by the December

discovery cutoff dates.

4. The parties agree that the State Agencies’ time for objecting to the

subpoenas, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(B), is likewise extended.

Dated:__________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER

By: /s/ Jennifer T. Buckman

Jennifer T. Buckman

Attorneys for Friant Defendants

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1256 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 3
Dated:__________________________

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General

of the State of California

By:_/s/ Anita E. Ruud

 Anita E. Ruud

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for California Department of

Water Resources and the State Reclamation

Board

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/20/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

 Honorable Gregory G. Hollows

 United States Magistrate Judge

nrdc1658.ord

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1256 Filed 10/20/05 Page 3 of 3