Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08011/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08011-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

1 In order to conserve scarce judicial resources, the parties are directed to promptly

inform the Court if they are involved in negotiations which they reasonably believe may

make the resolution of any pending motion unnecessary.

Counsel are advised that the Chambers’ e-mail box, established pursuant to the

Court’s CM/ECF rules, is to be used solely for the purpose of sending proposed orders to the

Court, and is NOT to be used as a means of communicating with Chambers’ staff.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Center for Biological Diversity,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States Bureau of Land

Management, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-CV-8011-PCT-PGR

SCHEDULING ORDER

A Scheduling Conference having been held before this Court on Tuesday, May 18,

2010,

IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Motions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), motions to amend pleadings, and motions

to join additional parties shall be filed no later than June 4, 2010.

1

(2) The parties shall exchange their respective initial disclosures, if any, pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1), and file a notice of such exchange no later than June 4, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08011-PGR Document 82 Filed 05/18/10 Page 1 of 4
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

2

 This is limited to claims four and five, as the NRA has maintained that it’s interests

lie only in those specific claims.

3 To date, the State of Arizona has filed a Motion to File Amicus Curiae. However,

in open court, counsel therefor represented that because of the State’s interest in the case, it

may file a Motion to Intervene. The Court will refrain from considering the Motion to File

Amicus Curiae until the deadline has passed for the filing of a Motion to Intervene, as the

latter will render the former moot.

- 2 -

(3) The parties shall file the administrative record no later than June 4, 2010. The

parties shall file the administrative record electronically and provide the Court with two

copies on cd no later than June 4, 2010. When motions for summary judgment are filed,

the parties shall provide courtesy hard copies of any referenced portion of the administrative

record. The hard copies shall be submitted in three ring binders and include any relevant

surrounding context and tables of context.

(4) The NRA, as Intervenor, may participate in the in all phases of the case, including

the merits phase.2

(5) In the event the State of Arizona decides to file a Motion to Intervene, it shall file

said motion no later than May 27, 2010. The response and reply to the motion shall be filed

pursuant to the deadlines and parameters set forth in the local and federal rules of civil

procedure.3

(6) After the Court’s resolution of the Motion to File Amicus Curiae, to which there

are no objections, and/or the Motion to Intervene (in the event that is filed), by the State of

Arizona, the parties and any amici and intervenors are to confer with each other and within

7 days of the Court’s aforementioned resolution, submit a revised proposed briefing

schedules for (1) challenges to the administrative record and (2) summary judgment motions.

Case 3:09-cv-08011-PGR Document 82 Filed 05/18/10 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

(7) The Court will not entertain a judgment on the pleadings filed by Intervenor

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), as any of the arguments made therein can be properly

addressed in a motion for summary judgment. The Court agrees with both Plaintiff and

Defendants that in the interest of judicial economy and in avoiding duplicative dispositive

motions and unnecessary filings, the issues should be reserved for summary judgment.

(8) The parties are cautioned that the deadlines set in this Preliminary Scheduling

Order shall be enforced, and that the Court will not entertain any stipulations to continue

them - any request to extend any of the deadlines set herein must be made by means of a

motion, joint or otherwise, and no such motion shall be granted unless very good cause is

shown.

(9) The Court does not find that it is in the best interest of the cases or judicial

economy to consolidate two cases that do not have the same claims, same Complaints, same

Plaintiff’s counsel, or intend to have joint filings. The cases are similar and do have similar

claims, however, the risk of confusion outweighs the potential value of consolidation. The

cases will remain on a related track which means they will have the same briefing schedule

and deadlines. Accordingly, they are to confer with each other in proposing deadlines. See

supra.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-08011-PGR Document 82 Filed 05/18/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

(10) The Court will enter a subsequent Scheduling Order after resolving the State of

Arizona’s motion and after receiving the proposed revised briefing schedules.

DATED this 18th day of May, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08011-PGR Document 82 Filed 05/18/10 Page 4 of 4