Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01703-7/pdf.json

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

---

JOINT STIP TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01703

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

JASON R. FLANDERS, SBN 238007

Email: jrf@atalawgroup.com

ERICA A. MAHARG, SBN 279369

Email: eam@atalawgroup.com

AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP LLP

4030 Martin Luther King Jr. Way

Oakland, CA 94609

Phone: (916) 202-3018

DREVET HUNT, SBN 240487

Email: dhunt@cacoastkeeper.org

CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE

1100 11th Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (415) 606-0864

Attorneys for Plaintiff CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER 

ALLIANCE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CONSUMNES CORPORATION dba

MURIETA EQUESTRIAN CENTER,

 Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv 1703 DB

JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 41 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 6
JOINT STIP TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 2 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01703

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

WHEREAS, following mediation of this matter on December 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge 

Newman directed the Parties to work cooperatively to narrow issues for discovery and motion 

practice in this case;

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred continuously following mediation in an 

effort to agree on the wording of a Joint Stipulation concerning phased discovery that is designed to 

increase the potential for the amicable resolution of this matter without a trial and ultimately save 

judicial and litigant resources;

WHEREAS, the Parties have met, conferred, and have preliminarily agreed upon a set of 

stipulated facts that may narrow the scope of discovery and related motion practice;

WHEREAS, the Parties believe that bifurcating Plaintiff’s second cause of action, for 

alleged violations of the federal Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), to Phase III,

would promote judicial economy in this case;

WHEREAS, the Parties believe that cross-motions for summary judgment regarding 

Plaintiff’s standing may serve to significantly narrow the issues in dispute in this case;

WHEREAS, the Plaintiff believes that a motion for summary judgment regarding whether 

Defendant’s facility is a concentrated animal feeding operation that discharges pollutants to Waters 

of the United States (“WOTUS”) may serve to establish liability at summary judgment and 

significantly narrow the remaining issues in dispute in this case1

;

THEREFORE, for the good cause, above, the Parties hereby stipulate and request that this 

proceeding be phased as follows:

1 The Defendant believes that any summary motion based on WOTUS is premature in light of likely 

factual issues in dispute and based on the United States Supreme Court’s January 24, 2022, granting 

the landowners’ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari in Sackett v. EPA. The decision in that 

case, which is anticipated later this year, will likely clarify the proper test that federal courts should 

use in cases involving jurisdictional determinations involving WOTUS, including in this case.

The Plaintiff believes that the timing and outcome of the Sackett v. EPA case is wholly speculative, 

that Plaintiff can establish WOTUS under both the Scalia and Kennedy Rapanos tests, and that the 

standing motions will put at issues facts related to the receiving waters common to the WOTUS 

questions, rendering successive piecemeal summary judgment motions inefficient.

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 41 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 6
JOINT STIP TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 3 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01703

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. Phase I discovery shall be limited to issues related to standing and whether Defendant’s 

facility discharges pollutants to Waters of the United States.

2. Phase II discovery shall be limited to issues related to all remaining Clean Water Act issues, 

including remedies.

3. Phase III discovery shall be limited to issues related to the Plaintiff’s claims for violation of 

RCRA.

4. Phase I discovery, expert disclosures, and motion practice shall be scheduled as follows:

February 10, 2022 – Plaintiff to file its motion to seek leave to amend its First Amended 

Complaint.

February 11, 2022 – Plaintiff to disclose all fact witnesses who may submit declarations in 

support of its Summary Judgment Motions to establish standing and that the facility discharges 

pollutants to WOTUS, and all fact witnesses who may submit declarations in opposition to the 

Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion based on standing.

February 25, 2022 – Defendant to file its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to seek leave to 

amend its First Amended Complaint.

March 4, 2022 – Plaintiff to file its reply in support of its motion to seek leave to amend its 

First Amended Complaint.

March 15, 2022 – Plaintiff to disclose Phase I expert witness report(s)

April 26, 2022 – Defendant to disclose Phase I expert witness report(s) 

April 26, 2022 – Defendant to disclose all fact witnesses who may submit declarations in 

support of its Summary Judgment Motion based on standing.

May 17, 2022 – Plaintiff to disclose Phase I expert rebuttal report(s)

June 22, 2022 – Deadline for Completion of Phase I Discovery

August 12, 2022 – Deadline for submission of the parties’ Phase I summary judgment

motions.

September 23, 2022 – Deadline for submission of the parties’ oppositions to Phase I 

summary judgment motions.

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 41 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 6
JOINT STIP TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 4 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01703

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

October 14, 2022 – Deadline for submission of the parties’ replies in support of their Phase I 

summary judgment motions.

The parties propose the following page limits for summary judgment motion practice:

Plaintiff’s combined Phase I Summary Judgment motion: 25 pages; 25 pages for 

Defendant’s opposition thereto; and 15 pages for Plaintiff’s reply; Defendant’s summary judgment 

motion, Plaintiff’s opposition thereto, and Defendant’s reply shall comply with the page limits set 

forth in Judge Mueller’s Civil Standing Order.

Within 10 days of any ruling on the parties’ Phase I summary judgment motions, the Parties 

shall meet and confer on whether the case should be referred back to Magistrate Judge Newman for 

further mediation, or otherwise present a joint proposed schedule to the Court for Phase II.

Dated: February 4, 2022 AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP

By: /s/Jason R. Flanders

Jason R. Flanders

Attorneys for Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA 

COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE

Dated: February 4, 2022 CALIFORNIA COAST KEEPER ALLIANCE

By: /s/Drevet Hunt

Drevet Hunt

Attorneys for Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA 

COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE

Dated: February 4, 2022

OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ PC

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By: /s/ Glenn A. Friedman 

Glenn A. Friedman

Attorneys for Defendant, CONSUMNES 

CORPORATION dba MURIETA EQUESTRIAN 

CENTER

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 41 Filed 02/09/22 Page 4 of 6
JOINT STIP TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 5 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01703

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

ORDER

Based on the stipulation set forth above, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Phase I discovery shall be limited to issues related to standing and whether Defendant’s 

facility discharges pollutants to Waters of the United States.

2. Phase II discovery shall be limited to issues related to all remaining Clean Water Act issues, 

including remedies.

3. Phase III discovery shall be limited to issues related to the Plaintiff’s claims for violation of 

RCRA.

4. Phase I discovery, expert disclosures, and motion practice shall be scheduled as follows:

February 10, 2022 – Plaintiff to file its motion to seek leave to amend its First Amended 

Complaint.

February 11, 2022 – Plaintiff to disclose all fact witnesses who may submit declarations in 

support of its Summary Judgment Motions to establish standing and that the facility discharges 

pollutants to WOTUS, and all fact witnesses who may submit declarations in opposition to the 

Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion based on standing.

February 25, 2022 – Defendant to file its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to seek leave to 

amend its First Amended Complaint.

March 4, 2022 – Plaintiff to file its reply in support of its motion to seek leave to amend its 

First Amended Complaint.

March 15, 2022 – Plaintiff to disclose Phase I expert witness report(s)

April 26, 2022 – Defendant to disclose Phase I expert witness report(s) 

April 26, 2022 – Defendant to disclose all fact witnesses who may submit declarations in 

support of its Summary Judgment Motion based on standing.

May 17, 2022 – Plaintiff to disclose Phase I expert rebuttal report(s)

June 22, 2022 – Deadline for Completion of Phase I Discovery

August 12, 2022 – Deadline for submission of the parties’ Phase I summary judgment 

motions.

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 41 Filed 02/09/22 Page 5 of 6
JOINT STIP TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 6 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01703

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

September 23, 2022 – Deadline for submission of the parties’ oppositions to Phase I 

summary judgment motions.

October 14, 2022 – Deadline for submission of the parties’ replies in support of their Phase I 

summary judgment motions.

5. Summary judgment motion practice shall adhere to the following page limits:

Plaintiff’s combined Phase I Summary Judgment motion: 25 pages; 25 pages for 

Defendant’s opposition thereto; and 15 pages for Plaintiff’s reply; Defendant’s summary judgment 

motion, Plaintiff’s opposition thereto, and Defendant’s reply shall comply with the page limits set 

forth in Judge Mueller’s Civil Standing Order.

6. Within 10 days of any ruling on the parties’ Phase I summary judgment motions, the Parties

shall meet and confer on whether the case should be referred back to Magistrate Judge Newman for 

further mediation, or otherwise present a joint proposed schedule to the Court for Phase II

DATED: February 8, 2022 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 41 Filed 02/09/22 Page 6 of 6