Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-78/pdf.json

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

---

DIEPENBROCK

ELKIN LLP

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

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

COUNSEL IDENTIFICATION AT END

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: July 26-29, 2011

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 11
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

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 -

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 July 26-29, 2011:

1. The parties shall serve and filed their respective exhibit lists on Wednesday, July 

20, 2011. The exhibit lists shall identify those exhibits to be used for each party’s case-in-chief 

and need not include exhibits that may be used for demonstrative, cross-examination and/or 

rebuttal purposes. The exhibit lists shall identify the Administrative Record cite for each exhibit 

from the Administrative Record. For exhibits not included within the Administrative Record, the 

parties shall serve on each other copies of the exhibits by email with their exhibit lists or on disks 

served by overnight delivery for receipt on Thursday, July 21, 2011. Service of exhibits on the 

Federal Defendants shall be by disk by overnight mail only and not by email. The parties agree 

to label their exhibits numerically using the following number ranges:

Plaintiffs: 0-300

Plaintiff-Intervenor: 301-500

Federal Defendants: 501-1000

Defendant-Intervenors: 1001-1500

The parties have agreed to submit Defendants’ Motion to Strike on the papers unless the Court 

has questions for the parties. The parties respectfully request that the Court rule on the Motion to 

Strike 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 July 26, 2011. 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.

2. 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 25 court hours, 

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

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 2 of 11
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

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 -

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

total of 12.5 hours to be used by each side in its discretion among opening statements, 

arguments, and direct, cross and rebuttal examinations, subject to 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.

3. The parties have met and conferred regarding the order of witnesses. As 

explained in the Defendants’ pending motion to strike, Defendants’ position is that Plaintiffs’ 

evidence of alleged irreparable harm is the only evidence that may be considered because the 

merits of Action 4 have been fully adjudicated and a final judgment has been entered. See

Docket No. 947-1. Furthermore, because a likelihood of irreparable harm is a threshold showing 

that must be made before the Court can issue injunctive relief, Defendants’ position is that 

Plaintiffs’ testimony regarding alleged irreparable harm (i.e., Mr. Erlewine and Mr. Leahigh) 

should be presented first, prior to any testimony on the merits (i.e., Drs. Deriso, Burnham, 

Hanson, and Hutton), because if the Court finds no likelihood of irreparable harm, it need not 

proceed to the merits witnesses, thereby conserving judicial and party resources. The Court 

previously noted that such an approach made sense. See Docket No. 790 (summarizing the 

Court’s comments at a status hearing on Plaintiffs’ previous injunction motion that “it makes 

sense” for irreparable harm to be adjudicated prior to deciding whether to having the rest of the 

evidentiary hearing). Plaintiffs do not agree that Messrs. Erlewine and Leahigh should be 

presented first. They wish to present Drs. Deriso, Burnham, and Hanson first. Notwithstanding 

Defendants’ objections to presenting merits testimony first, in an effort to conserve judicial and 

party resources and avoid a scheduling dispute, if the Court is inclined to allow merits testimony 

to be presented first, Defendants are willing to proceed with Plaintiffs’ preferred order of 

witnesses as set forth below. However, this should not be construed as a waiver of any 

objections raised by Defendants to date, including this Court’s jurisdiction to hold an evidentiary 

hearing and the objections made in Defendants’ pending motion to strike. Defendants believe 

the Court would be acting well within its discretion to compel Plaintiffs to present testimony 

from Mr. Erlewine and Mr. Leahigh at the outset of the evidentiary hearing.

4. In response to Defendants’ position regarding the order of witnesses, Plaintiffs 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 3 of 11
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

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 -

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

submit that they have coordinated many schedules of counsel and witnesses to accommodate the 

wishes of Defendants leading up to these hearings. Plaintiffs do not agree that Defendants 

should dictate the order that Plaintiffs put on their witnesses for this motion. Plaintiffs brought 

this motion for interim relief in light of the Court's decision that the RPAs in the BiOp are 

arbitrary and capricious, including the Fall X2 Action. It is Defendants' decision to proceed with 

the Fall X2 Action notwithstanding the Court's ruling that has necessitated this hearing. All of 

the testimony will go to the issue of harm, showing lack of harm to the species as well as the 

harm to the state's water supply. Accordingly, Plaintiffs submit that the order of witnesses is 

appropriate, meets individual scheduling needs, and will be the most efficient presentation to the 

Court.

5. 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.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Opening Statements 

Dr. Richard Deriso 

Dr. Kenneth Burnham 

Dr. Charles Hanson 

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 

Dr. Charles Hanson, continued, if necessary

Dr. Paul Hutton 

Mr. John Leahigh 

Mr. Terry Erlewine 

Thursday, July 28, 2011 

Mr. Frederick Feyrer 

Dr. Matthew Nobriga 

Dr. Jennifer Norris 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 4 of 11
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

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 -

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

Friday, July 29, 2011 

Dr. Jennifer Norris, continued 

Plaintiff rebuttal witnesses

Closing Arguments

6. 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 

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

hearing: James Snow, David Sunding, Rod Stiefvater, Jeffrey Mettler, Peter Gleick, 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.

7. The parties have agreed that they may submit to the Court and rely upon during 

the hearing updated evidence regarding project operations, flows, and status and location of the 

species.

SO STIPULATED

Dated: July 20, 2011 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & 

GIRARD, LLP

DIEPENBROCK ELKIN, LLP

A Professional Corporation

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

EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY AND WESTLANDS WATER 

DISTRICT

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 5 of 11
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

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 -

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

Dated: July 20, 2011 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP

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

STEVE O. SIMS

MICHELLE C. KALES

GEOFFREY M. WILLIAMSON

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

Dated: July 20, 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

Dated: July 20, 2011 NOSSAMAN LLP

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

ROBERT D. THORNTON

PAUL S. WEILAND

AUDREY HUANG

ASHLEY J. REMILLARD

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE DELTA

and KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

Dated: July 20, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

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

ARTURO J. GONZALEZ

CHRISTOPHER J. CARR

WILLIAM M. SLOAN

TRAVIS BRANDON

Attorneys for Plaintiff

THE METROPOLITAN WATER

DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 6 of 11
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

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 -

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

Dated: July 20, 2011 KAMALA D. HARRIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

CLIFFORD T. LEE

CECILIA L. DENNIS

WILLIAM JENKINS

ALLISON GOLDSMITH

Deputies Attorney General

Attorneys for Plaintiff-In-Intervention 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

WATER RESOURCES

Dated: July 20, 2011 IGNACIA S. MORENO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

GENERAL

United States Department of Justice,

Environmental & Natural Resources Division

SETH M. BARSKY, CHIEF

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

ETHAN CARSON EDDY, Trial Attorney

Wildlife & Marine Resources Section

Attorneys for FEDERAL DEFENDANTS

Dated: July 20, 2011 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

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

KATHERINE POOLE

DOUG OBEGI

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL

Dated: July 20, 2011 THE BAY INSTITUTE

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

TRENT W. ORR

GEORGE M. TORGUN

Attorneys For Defendant-Intervenor

THE BAY INSTITUTE

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 7 of 11
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

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 -

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2011 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger

THE HONORABLE OLIVER W. WANGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 8 of 11
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

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 -

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

IDENTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

DANIEL J. O’HANLON (SBN 122380)

HANSPETER WALTER (SBN 244847)

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & 

GIRARD

400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 321-4500

Facsimile: (916) 321-4555

EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK (SBN 119254)

DAVID A. DIEPENBROCK (SBN 215679)

JONATHAN R. MARZ (SBN 221188)

DIEPENBROCK ELKIN, LLP

400 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 492-5000

Facsimile: (916) 446-4535

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY and WESTLANDS WATER 

DISTRICT

H. CRAIG MANSON (SBN 102298)

General Counsel

Westlands Water District

3130 N. Fresno Street

Fresno, CA 93703

Telephone: (559) 224-1523

Facsimile: (559) 241-6277

STEVE O. SIMS (admitted pro hac vice)

MARTHA F. BAUER (admitted pro hac vice)

MARK J. MATHEWS (admitted pro hac vice)

MICHELLE C. KALES (admitted pro hac vice)

GEOFFREY M. WILLIAMSON (admitted pro 

hac vice)

BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 

SCHRECK LLP

410 17th Street, Suite 2200

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 223-1100

Facsimile: (303) 223-1111

Attorneys for Plaintiff

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

GREGORY K. WILKINSON (SBN 054809)

STEVEN M. ANDERSON (SBN 186700)

PAETER E. GARCIA (SBN 199580)

MELISSA R. CUSHMAN (SBN 246398)

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

3750 University Avenue, Suite 400

P. O. Box 1028

Riverside, CA 92502

Telephone: (951) 686-1450

Facsimile: (951) 686-3083

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 

NOSSAMAN LLP

ROBERT D. THORNTON (SBN 72934)

PAUL S. WEILAND (SBN 237058)

AUDREY M. HUANG (SBN 217622)

ASHLEY J. REMILLARD (SBN 252374)

18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800

Irvine, CA 92612

Telephone: (949) 833-7800

Facsimile: (949) 833-7878

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE 

DELTA and KERN COUNTY WATER 

AGENCY

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 9 of 11
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

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

- 9 -

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

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

AMELIA T. MINABERRIGARAI (SBN 

192359)

P.O. Box 58

Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058

Telephone: (661) 634-1400

Facsimile: (661) 634-1428

Attorney for Plaintiff 

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (SBN 121490) 

CHRISTOPHER J. CARR (SBN 184076) 

WILLIAM M. SLOAN (SBN 203583) 

TRAVIS BRANDON (SBN 270717) 

MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 268-7000

MARCIA L. SCULLY (SBN 80648) 

Interim General Counsel 

LINUS MASOUREDIS (SBN 77322) 

Senior Deputy General Counsel 

LMasouredis@mwdh2o.com 

THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 

OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

1121 L Street, Suite 900 

Sacramento, California 95814-3974 

Telephone: (916) 650-2600 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 

OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

KAMALA D. HARRIS (SBN 146672)

Attorney General of California

CLIFFORD T. LEE (SBN 74687)

CECILIA L. DENNIS (SBN 201997)

ALLISON GOLDSMITH (SBN 238263)

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 703-5511

Facsimile: (415) 703-5480

Attorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

WATER RESOURCES

IGNACIA S. MORENO,

Assistant Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

Environmental & Natural Resources Division

SETH M. BARSKY, Chief

S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief 

ETHAN EDDY (Cal. Bar. No. 237214)

Trial Attorney

ROBERT P. WILLIAMS (DC Bar No. 

474730)

Trial Attorney

United States Department of Justice

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section

Benjamin Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7369

Washington, D.C. 20044-7369

Telephone: (202) 305-0210

Facsimile: (202) 305-0275

Attorneys for FEDERAL DEFENDANTS 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 10 of 11
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

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

- 10 -

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

KATHERINE POOLE (SBN 195010)

DOUG OBEGI (SBN 246127)

Natural Resources Defense Council

111 Sutter St., 20th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 875-6100

Facsimile: (415) 875-6161

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL

TRENT W. ORR (SBN 77656)

GEORGE M. TORGUN (SBN 222085)

Earthjustice

426 17th Street, 5th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 550-6725

Facsimile: (510) 550-6749

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL; THE BAY INSTITUTE

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 996 Filed 07/22/11 Page 11 of 11