Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00453/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00453-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

[STIPULATED SCHEDULE and PROPOSED ORDER 

- 1 - 

P:\601C – MID v. GUTIERREZ\PLEADINGS\P031207.STIP.SCHEDULE&PROP.ORDER 

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

Tim O’Laughlin, SBN 116807 

towater@olaughlinparis.com 

William C. Paris III, SBN 168712 

BParis@olaughlinparis.com 

O’LAUGHLIN & PARIS LLP 

2580 Sierra Sunrise Terrace, Suite 210 

Chico, California 95928 

Telephone: 530.899.9755 

Facsimile: 530.899.1367 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Oakdale Irrigation District 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Modesto Irrigation District (“Modesto ID”), a 

California irrigation district; et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, 

in his official capacity; et al. 

Defendants, 

 and 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF 

FEDERATION OF FLY FISHERS, et al., 

 Defendants-Intervenors. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO.: 1:06:CV-00453-OWW-DLB 

STIPULATED SCHEDULE and 

ORDER 

Date: 

Time: 

Courtroom No. 

[No hearing requested]

Pursuant to the Court’s December 15, 2006 Order, Counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendants, 

and Defendant-Intervenors hereby request that the Court adopt the stipulated schedule set forth 

herein. Counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors conferred on March 12, 

2007 and reached agreement as to the stipulations and requests made herein. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00453-OWW -DLB Document 76 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 3
[STIPULATED SCHEDULE and PROPOSED ORDER 

- 2 - 

P:\601C – MID v. GUTIERREZ\PLEADINGS\P031207.STIP.SCHEDULE&PROP.ORDER 

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

The parties have agreed to the following stipulated terms and deadlines, and request the 

Court’s approval thereof: 

1. The parties agree that summary judgment briefing shall be conducted according to the 

following schedule: 

a. Plaintiffs will file their motion for Summary Judgment by May 7, 2007. 

b. Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors will file their oppositions and crossmotions for summary judgment by June 7, 2007. 

c. Plaintiffs will file their replies in support of summary judgment and opposition to 

Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ cross-motions by July 9, 2007. 

d. Defendants and Defendants-Intervenors will file their replies by July 25, 2007. 

2. The parties request that this Court schedule a hearing for oral argument on the 

above-described motions and cross-motions for summary judgment on Monday, August 

20, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. 

3. As part of the motion to augment the Administrative Record, the Defendants 

agreed to release three documents in their entirety (AR #s 2259R, 2260R and 2255) and 

eight partial releases (AR #s 2241R (first redaction), 2242R (same redaction as 2241R), 

2289R (first redaction), 2293R (same redaction as 2289R), 2336R (last redaction and 

third to last redaction), 2343R (second redaction), 2261 (e-mail from Dan Cohen) and 

2265 (first paragraph)). Defendants agree to make these documents available to Plaintiffs 

as soon as possible now that the Court has formally ruled on the remaining documents at 

issue. (See Court’s order of March 9, 2007). Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek to amend 

the above-agreed upon schedule if the documents are not produced in a timely fashion. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00453-OWW -DLB Document 76 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 3
[STIPULATED SCHEDULE and PROPOSED ORDER 

- 3 - 

P:\601C – MID v. GUTIERREZ\PLEADINGS\P031207.STIP.SCHEDULE&PROP.ORDER 

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. Parties agree that the issues regarding the adoption of critical habitat, as set forth in 

Plaintiffs’ Tenth Cause of Action, should be delayed until such time as the summary 

judgment motions discussed in paragraph 1 are completed. The issues in the Tenth Cause 

of Action may become moot and, in any case, will require preparation of a separate, 

voluminous administrative record. 

5. In addition, Counsel request that the Court defer the deadline for the parties to submit a 

Joint Status Report until 30 days after the Court rules on the last outstanding dispositive 

motion. 

DATED: March 12, 2007 

/s/ /s/ Bridget Kennedy-McNeil with consent 

WILLIAM C. PARIS III BRIDGET KENNEDY-McNEIL, Trial 

O’LAUGHLIN & PARIS LLP attorney,United States Department of Justice

2580 Sierra Sunrise Terrace, Suite 210 Environmental and Natural Resources Div. 

Chico, California 95928 Wildlife and Marine Resources Section 

Telephone: 530.899.9755 1961 Stout Street, 8th Floor 

Facsimile: 530.899.1367 Denver, CO 80294 

bparis@olaughlinparis.com Telephone: 303.844.1484 

 Facsimile: 303.844.1350 

 bridget.mcneil@usdoj.gov

/s/ Stephen D. Mashuda with consent 

STEPHEN D. MASHUDA 

Earthjustice 

705 Second Avenue, Suite 203 

Seattle, WA 98104-1711 

Telephone: 206.343.7340 

Facsimile: 206.343.1526 

smashuda@earthjustice.org

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 4/12/07 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00453-OWW -DLB Document 76 Filed 04/16/07 Page 3 of 3