Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00211/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00211-9/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-00211-MCE-KJN Document 86 Filed 11/10/05 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

27

28

Counsel in fact proposes combined briefing in this regard 1

totaling 55 pages, as opposed to the 50 pages for each crossmotion, and 35 pages for opposing Plaintiffs’ motions, that is

permitted under the terms of the October 27, 2005 Order.

2

Counsel for the Federal Defendants in these related cases

has requested limited reconsideration of the Court’s October 27,

2005 Order, which establishes a briefing schedule and imposes

page limitations on the briefs to be submitted by the various

parties. Specifically, federal counsel asks that the Court

permit it to submit a combined opposition to Plaintiffs’ motions

for summary judgment that also incorporates the Federal

Defendants’ own cross motions for summary judgment, if any. 

Counsel argues that such combined briefing will eliminate 1

potential pleading redundancies and would consequently promote

judicial economy.

After considering this matter further, the Court remains

convinced that separate briefing will best ensure that the

various issues presented by these related cases are effectively

and expeditiously considered. The Court fully expects that

certain overlapping arguments may be incorporated by reference

from other pleadings. The Court believes that combined briefing

will make it logistically difficult, if not nearly impossible, to

assess each motion on its own merits. Consequently, Federal

Defendants’ Motion for Limited Reconsideration is DENIED.

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance to

the Court in resolving this matter, oral argument is unnecessary

and a hearing date need not be established. See Local Rule 78-

230(h). Accordingly, it is also not necessary to rule on Federal

Case 2:05-cv-00211-MCE-KJN Document 86 Filed 11/10/05 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

27

28

3

Defendant’s request that time be shortened for a hearing on their

request for limited reconsideration, and the Court declines to do

so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 8, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00211-MCE-KJN Document 86 Filed 11/10/05 Page 3 of 3