Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01207-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

[PROPOSED] STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER— 05-CV-01207 OWW LJO 1

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

ANDREA A. TREECE, State Bar No. 237639 

DEBORAH S. REAMES, State Bar No. 117257 

Earthjustice 

426 17th Street, 5th Floor 

Oakland, CA 94612 

atreece@earthjustice.org; dreames@earthjustice.org

Telephone: 510/550-6725 

TRENT W. ORR, State Bar No. 077656 

953 Clayton Street, #5 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

torr@earthjustice.org

Telephone: 415/665-2185 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

HAMILTON CANDEE, State Bar No. 111376 

KATHERINE POOLE, State Bar No. 195010 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

111 Sutter St., 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

hcandee@nrdc.org; kpoole@nrdc.org

Telephone: 415/875-6100 

Attorneys for Plaintiff NRDC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL, et al.

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, et al.

 Defendants. 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY and WESTLANDS WATER 

DISTRICT; CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU 

FEDERATION; GLENN-COLUSA 

IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.; CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS; and KERN 

COUNTY WATER AGENCY 

 Defendant-Intervenors. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 05-CV-01207 OWW LJO 

STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 230 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 3
[PROPOSED] STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER— 05-CV-01207 OWW LJO 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

At the status conference held May 26, 2006, with counsel for all parties present, the Court 

established the following page limitations for briefs on motion and cross-motions for summary 

judgment in this case, due on the dates indicated: 

June 9, 2006: Plaintiffs’ opening brief in support of motion for summary judgment 

shall be no longer than 35 pages. 

July 14, 2006: Defendant parties’ briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs’ opening brief and 

in support of any cross-motions for summary judgment: 

Federal Defendants’ brief shall be no longer than 35 pages. 

Defendant-intervenor Department of Water Resources’ (“DWR”) brief 

shall be no longer than 25 pages. 

Defendant-intervenors San Luis-Delta Mendota Water Authority et al. 

(“SLDMWA”) and California Farm Bureau Federation (“Farm 

Bureau”) shall file a joint brief that shall be no longer than 20 pages. 

Defendant-intervenor State Water Contractors’ (“SWC”) brief shall be 

no longer than 20 pages. 

Defendant-intervenor Kern County Water Agency’s (“KCWA”) brief, 

limited solely to the Commerce Clause issue, shall be no longer than 

15 pages. 

August 4, 2006: Plaintiffs’ reply brief and opposition to Defendant parties’ crossmotions shall be no longer than 70 pages regarding the issues raised in 

all of the defendant parties’ briefs except for KCWA’s brief. Plaintiffs 

shall have an additional 7 pages maximum to reply to KCWA’s brief 

regarding the Commerce Clause issue. 

DWR may respond to KCWA’s brief with a maximum of 7 pages. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 230 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 3
[PROPOSED] STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER— 05-CV-01207 OWW LJO 3

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

August 11, 2006: Federal Defendants’s reply regarding the Commerce Clause issue shall 

be no longer than 12 pages, unless DWR files a reply to KCWA’s 

initial brief, in which case Federal Defendants’ reply shall be no longer 

than 17 pages. 

August 25, 2006: Defendant parties’ replies to Plaintiffs’ opposition to cross-motions for 

summary judgment: 

Federal Defendants’ reply shall be no longer than 30 pages. 

DWR, SLDMWA, Farm Bureau, and SWC shall jointly file a single 

reply brief that shall be no longer than 20 pages. In the event 

Plaintiffs’ briefs raise issues concerning remedies, defendantintervenors Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, et al., shall be allowed to 

present their response to such issues in this joint reply. 

KCWA’s reply shall be no longer than 7 pages, unless DWR files a 

response to KCWA’s initial brief, in which case KCWA’s reply shall 

be no longer than 10 pages. 

September 25, 2006: Hearing on motions for summary judgment. 

Briefing will address the question of Federal Defendants' liability on the merits, with any 

briefing necessary to address the question of remedies to follow the Court's decision on liability. 

Counsel for all parties have reviewed and approved this order as to form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 5, 2006 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

OLIVER W. WANGER 

United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 230 Filed 06/06/06 Page 3 of 3