Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00392-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00392-LJO-JLT

a non-profit organization,

 

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTINGINPART AND DENYING

IN PART JOINT MOTION MODIFY THE

v. SCHEDULING ORDER

 

UNITED STATE FOREST SERVICE, (Doc. 47)

ABIGAIL KIMBELL, in her official

capacity as Chief of the United States

Forest Service, and TINA TERRELL, in

her official capacity as Forest Supervisor

for Sequoia National Forest,

Defendants.

 /

Pursuant to the Parties’ joint request, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (Doc.

47) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the Scheduling Order is modified as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment must be filed no later than July 2,

2010.

2. Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment must be filed no later than August 20, 2010.

3. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition and an Opposition to Defendants’

Cross Motion for Summary Judgment must be filed no later than September 17,

1

Case 1:09-cv-00392-LJO-JLT Document 51 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2010.

4. Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment must be filed no later than October 22, 2010.

5. No other dates outlined in the Scheduling Order are modified.

6. The parties are forewarned that having granted this and two previous

amendments to the Scheduling Order upon the stipulation of the parties, no

further modifications will be approved upon stipulation and a noticed motion

establishing good cause will be required. The parties are reminded that a lack of

diligence in pursuing this case does not constitute good cause to modify the

Scheduling Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00392-LJO-JLT Document 51 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 2