Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-44/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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE CONSOLIDATED SALMONID ) Case No.: 1:09-cv-1053-OWW-DLB

CASES )

) ORDER GRANTING IN

) PART AND DENYING IN PART

) DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

) STRIKE AND DENYING PLAINTIFF-

) INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO STRIKE

)

Defendant-Intervenors’ and Federal Defendants’ Motions to Strike Plaintiffs’ ExtraRecord Declarations and Exhibits (Docs. 473-1, 476, 483, 509-1, 511, 510-1, 512), as well as 

Plaintiff-Intervenor DWR’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 502), were heard and considered by the Court 

at the hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment in this matter held on December 16 and 

17, 2010. All parties were represented by counsel, as stated on the record.

NOW THEREFORE, for the reasons articulated by the Court on the record at the hearing, 

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The Court reserves its ruling on the final admissibility of the testimony provided 

by Dr. Ray Hilborn in his first declaration (Doc. 443).

2. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to strike the second declaration of Dr. 

Ray Hilborn (Doc. 493), except that the Court will consider testimony in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 11, 

12, 14, 17, 30.

3. The Court reserves its ruling as to the admissibility of paragraphs 3-12 of the first 

declaration of Dr. Charles Hanson (Doc. 432) and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to strike 

paragraphs 13-16 in the first declaration of Dr. Charles Hanson.

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 536 Filed 01/20/11 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

28

4. To the extent that the testimony is responsive to admissible testimony from Mr. 

Jeff Stuart, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike the second declaration of Dr. 

Charles Hanson (Doc. 496).

5. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to strike paragraphs 16-32, and 38-40, 

of the first declaration of Dr. Richard B. Deriso (Doc. 440). The Court DENIES Defendants’ 

motion to strike paragraphs 33-37, except to the extent that the testimony is cumulative with Dr. 

Hilborn’s testimony regarding life-cycle modeling. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to 

strike paragraphs 13-15. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to strike paragraphs 11-12 

because such testimony is relevant to paragraphs that were stricken above. The Court reserves its 

ruling on the admissibility of paragraphs 41-50. 

6. The Court reserves its ruling as to the admissibility of the second declaration of 

Dr. Richard B. Deriso (Doc. 505), and will exclude any testimony that is cumulative or 

redundant.

7. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to strike paragraphs 4-37, 45-47, and 

48-52, of the first declaration of Mr. Steven P. Cramer (Doc. 448). The Court reserves its ruling 

as to the admissibility of paragraphs 38-44. 

8. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to strike the second declaration of Mr. 

Steven P. Cramer (Doc. 491), except for paragraphs 20-26, as to which the Court reserves its 

ruling as to admissibility.

9. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike the first declaration of Mr. 

Bradley Cavallo (Doc. 452), except that the Court reserves its ruling on paragraphs 45-51 

concerning DSM-II HYDRO because Plaintiff-Intervenor DWR has not laid the foundation that 

the DSMII HYDRO model was one that the National Marine Fisheries Service “had access to” 

and was “existing and known science.” 

10. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike the second declaration of Mr. 

Bradley Cavallo (Doc. 497) to the extent that it is responsive to the testimony of Mr. Jeff Stuart. 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 536 Filed 01/20/11 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

28

11. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike paragraphs 2 – 9 of the first 

declaration of Mr. James Snow (Doc. 444). The Court GRANTS the motion with respect to 

paragraphs 16-17 of the same document, as it presents testimony on a legal argument, but 

clarifies that Plaintiffs’ counsel may present the legal argument. 

12. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike the second declaration of Mr. 

James Snow (Doc. 494) to the extent that Mr. Snow is replying to the testimony of Mr. Milligan 

and Mr. Hilts, which responds to the portions of the first Snow declaration which are admissible. 

13. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike the first declaration of Dr. 

Kenneth Burnham (Doc. 439). 

14. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike the second declaration of Dr. 

Kenneth Burnham (Doc. 504), except to the extent the testimony is cumulative of his first 

declaration. 

15. The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion to strike as to those portions 

of the first and second declarations of Dr. Kenneth Cummins (Docs. 445, 490) that opine that the 

Service should have conducted experiments to validate the choice of surrogates and DENIES IN 

PART Defendants’ motion to strike as to the remaining portions of those declarations on the 

grounds that the testimony explains technical terms or complex subject matter.

16. The Court DENIES the Defendants’ motion to strike the declaration of Mr. 

Daniel Steiner (Doc. 437).

17. The Court DENIES the Defendants’ motion to strike the declaration of Mr. Avry 

Dotan (Doc. 442).

18. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to strike the first and second 

declarations of Dr. Daniel Schindler, except to the extent that they provide non-cumulative 

explanatory science. (Docs. 441 & 506).

19. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to strike the 2010 Ocean Harvest BiOp 

and any reference to the conclusions or facts in the biological opinion, but will take judicial 

notice of the existence of the 2010 Ocean Harvest BiOp and consider argument concerning 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 536 Filed 01/20/11 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

28

whether the 2010 Ocean Harvest BiOp was otherwise admissible for purposes of impeachment

and/or bad faith.

20. The Court DENIES Plaintiff-Intervenor’s motion to strike references in the 

Fourth Declaration of Jeffrey Stuart to the National Marine Fisheries Service (2009) Endangered 

Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act Consultation: Reinitiation of Formal Consultation for the 

South Delta Water Exports, the Appendix J of the 2005 SDIP Draft EIR/EIS, and page 19 line 24 

through page 20, line 3 of the Fourth Declaration of Jeffrey Stuart. The Court overrules the 

objection to references to 2010 Delta passage model, Miller (2002), Newman and Brandes 

(2010), Vogel (2002), and Wilbur (2000), because these documents may be considered 

for impeachment purposes. The Court will consider Mr. Stuart’s reference to the National 

Academy of Science (2010) report on the issue of whether a reasonable scientist would analyze 

the issues as NMFS did.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2011 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 536 Filed 01/20/11 Page 4 of 4