Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-88-1658 LKK

Plaintiffs,

O R D E R

v.

KIRK C. RODGERS, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of several motions related to the

filing of amicus briefs in the above-captioned case. The court

addresses each motion in turn.

First, on September 25, 2006, the South San Joaquin

Irrigation District, Oakland Irrigation District, Modesto

Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District, and Merced

Irrigation District (the “Irrigation Districts”) filed a motion

for an extension of time to file their amicus brief by October

13, 2006. Previously, on August 15, 2005, the court granted

leave to file an amicus brief within fifteen days from the

lodging of a settlement by the parties. The settling parties do

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1359 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 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

2

not oppose an extension of time but request that the Irrigation

Districts submit their amicus brief by no later than October 6,

2006, which is the day that an opposition to the settling

parties’ motion to enter is due.

Second, on September 8, 2006, Public Citizens, Bowles

Farming company, Inc., the Nickel Family LLC d/b/a San Juan

Ranch, Wolfsen, Inc., the Forbes, Yore & McGinn Corp. a/k/a

McNamara Farms, and Carolyn Butts (collectively, the “Reach 4B

Landowners”) filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief.

Likewise, on September 14, 2006, the San Joaquin River Exchange

Contractors Water Authority (“Exchange Contractors”) filed a

motion for leave to file an amicus brief. Both requested

fifteen days from the lodging of the settlement in which to file

their briefs. On September 15, 2006, the settling parties

responded that they do not oppose either motion in principle. 

Subsequently, on September 26, 2006, the Ranch 4B Landowners

filed an amended motion, in which they attached the amici brief

for which they sought leave to file.

Finally, on September 26, 2006, the Lower San Joaquin Levee

District (“Levee District”) filed a motion for leave to file an

amicus brief. The Levee District also requested fifteen days

from the lodging of the settlement in which to do so.

Good cause having been shown, the court orders as follows:

1. The Irrigation Districts’ motion for an extension of

time to file their amicus brief is hereby GRANTED. 

Amici shall file their brief by October 6, 2006.

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1359 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 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

3

 2. The Exchange Contractors’ motion for leave to file an

amicus brief is hereby GRANTED. Amici shall file

their brief by October 6, 2006. The hearing set for

October 23, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED.

3. The Reach 4B Landowners’ motion for leave to file an

amicus brief is hereby GRANTED. Amici shall file

their brief by October 6, 2006. The hearing set for

October 10, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. is hereby VACATED.

4. The Levee Districts’ motion for leave to file an

amicus is hereby GRANTED. Amici shall file their

brief by October 6, 2006. The hearing set for October

23, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. is hereby VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2006.

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1359 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 3