Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00953-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SIERRA NEVADA FOREST PROTECTION No. CIV-S-05-0205 MCE GGH 

CAMPAIGN, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL 

DIVERSITY, NATURAL RESOURCES CIV-S-05-0211 MCE GGH

DEFENSE COUNCIL, SIERRA CLUB, CIV-S-05-0905 MCE GGH 

and THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, CIV-S-05-0953 MCE GGH 

non-profit organizations,

 (Related Cases)

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE

MARK REY, in his official

capacity as Under Secretary of

Agriculture, DALE BOSWORTH, in

his official capacity as Chief

of the United States Forest

Service, JACK BLACKWELL, in his

official capacity as Regional

Forester, Region 5, United

States Forest Service, and

JAMES M. PEÑA, in his official

capacity as Forest Supervisor,

Plumas National Forest, 

Defendants.

________________________________/

and Related Cases.

----oo0oo----

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 55 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

The Court has reviewed the proposed briefing schedules

submitted by counsel in these related cases. Originally, by

Joint Status Report filed August 15, 2005, an overall schedule

was suggested for submitting cross-motions for summary judgment

in all four lawsuits, which the parties claim will be dispositive

of the issues raised therein. On or about September 7, 2005,

however, counsel for the Plaintiff in Pacific Rivers Council v.

United States Forest Service, et al., Case No. CIV. S-05-0953 MCE

GGH, withdrew from that briefing schedule and proposed a new, and

somewhat delayed, timeline for presentation of briefs in that

case.

Pursuant to both proposed schedules, Plaintiffs’ Motions for

Summary Judgment in all four cases have now been submitted. In

the August 15, 2005 Joint Status Report, all parties requested

waiver of the requirement, under Local Rule 56-260(a), that a

separate statement of undisputed facts be presented in supported

of each summary judgment request, and that a response to that

statement be filed in opposition under Rule 56-260(b). In

reliance on that request, the summary judgment motions filed by

Plaintiffs in California Forestry Association v. Bosworth, et

al., Case No. CIV. S-05-0905 MCE GGH, Sierra Nevada Forest

Protection Campaign v. Rey, Case No. CIV. S-05-0205 MCE GGH, and

Pacific Rivers Council v. United States Forest Service, et al.,

supra, fail to include a separate statement of undisputed facts.

The Court declines to waive presentation of a separate

statement of undisputed facts in support of, and in opposition

to, the motions for summary judgment in these related cases. The

Court believes that those statements will be of assistance in

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 55 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

analyzing the administrative record and in ultimately deciding

the issues raised by the parties herein. The briefing schedule

set forth below has extended the period within which Plaintiffs

may submit their initial motions so that they may provide the

required statements.

In addition, the Court believes that combined briefing, as

also requested by the parties, will make it more difficult to

identify and address the issues raised by each discrete briefing

submitted by the various parties to these cases. Consequently,

papers in support of, or in opposition to, each motion filed in

accordance with the schedule set forth below will be filed

separately and identified specifically as to its contents. 

In view of the number of intervenors in this case, the Court

grants the requested modification of the page limits established

in its June 16, 2005 Order in order to give both Plaintiffs and

Defendants the opportunity to respond, in a separate pleading of

not more than twenty-five (25) pages, to the intervenors’ briefs.

The following briefing schedule will apply:

November 14, 2005 Plaintiffs file all papers in support of

their motions for summary judgment,

including statements of undisputed fact.

Each memorandum of points and

authorities shall not exceed 50 pages,

plus supporting papers.

December 16, 2005 Federal Defendants file their opposition

to Plaintiffs’ motions for summary

judgment, each brief not exceeding 35

pages, plus supporting papers.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 55 Filed 10/27/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

December 16, 2005 Federal Defendants file their crossmotions for summary judgment, including

statements of undisputed fact. Each

memorandum of points and authorities

shall not exceed 50 pages, plus

supporting papers.

January 6, 2006 Defendant-Intervenors may file their

briefs, each brief not to exceed 20

pages, plus supporting papers.

February 17, 2006 Plaintiffs file their opposition to 

Federal Defendants’ cross-motions for

summary judgment, each brief not to

exceed 30 pages, plus supporting papers.

February 17, 2006 Plaintiffs file their reply in support

of their motions for summary judgment,

each brief not to exceed 10 pages, plus

supporting papers.

February 17, 2006 Plaintiffs may respond to briefs

submitted by Defendant-Intervenors, each

response not to exceed 25 pages, plus

supporting papers.

March 17, 2006 Federal Defendants file their reply in

support of their cross-motions for

summary judgment, each brief not to

exceed 10 pages, plus supporting papers.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 55 Filed 10/27/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

March 17, 2006 Federal Defendants may respond to briefs

submitted by Defendant-Intervenors, each

response not to exceed 25 pages, plus

supporting papers.

Oral argument, if deemed necessary by the Court, will be

scheduled following the conclusion of the briefing schedule

outlined above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 26, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 55 Filed 10/27/05 Page 5 of 5