Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06285/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06285-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROYAL GOLD, LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-06285-RS 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME

 Defendant Royal Gold requests an extension of time to file its response to Plaintiff 

Humbolt Baykeeper’s complaint. Royal Gold notes that Humbolt Baykeeper has filed a relevant 

administrative challenge, which is set to be heard by the Humbolt County Board of Supervisors 

(“Board of Supervisors”) on December 6, 2016. Royal Gold contends that the Board of 

Supervisors is expected to vote on that challenge either at the hearing or shortly thereafter. 

Humbolt Baykeeper opposes the extension citing concerns about its ability to begin discovery 

during the “rainy season.” Good cause appearing, Royal Gold shall have until January 6, 2017 to 

answer Humbolt Baykeeper’s complaint. In the future, the parties are encouraged to confer and 

reach agreement about scheduling issues without expending judicial resources.1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 5, 2016 

______________________________________ 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

United States District Judge 

 

1 The parties are also encouraged to review the local rules; Royal Gold’s request was improperly 

styled as an ex parte motion. 

_____________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

U i d S Di i J d

Case 3:16-cv-06285-RS Document 15 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 1