Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06461/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06461-5/pdf.json

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

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER

AUTHORITY, WESTLANDS WATER

DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU

FEDERATION AND TED SHEELY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, AS SECRETARY OF

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR; U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE

SERVICE; H. DALE HALL, AS

DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR; STEVE THOMPSON, AS

OPERATIONS MANAGER,

CALIFORNIA/NEVADA OPERATIONS

OFFICE, FISH AND WILDLIFE

SERVICE, PACIFIC REGION, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DAVE

ALLEN, AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

PACIFIC REGION, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF THE INTERIOR,

Defendants.

________________________________

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, SACRAMENTO RIVER

PRESERVATION TRUST, SAVE SAN

FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION AND

THE BAY INSTITUTE,

Defendant-Intervenors.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:02-cv-6461 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

Case 1:02-cv-06461-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 09/05/06 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

2

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

August 31, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Daniel O’Hanlon, Esq., appeared telephonically on behalf of

San Luis et al., laintiffs.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP by Christopher H. Buckley, Jr.,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs California Farm Bureau.

 Brenda Washington Davis, Esq., appeared on behalf of

Plaintiffs California Farm Bureau Federation and Ted Sheely. 

Ronda Azevedo Lucas, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs

Ted Sheely and California Farm Bureau Federation.

James A. Maysonett, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of

Justice, appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant U.S.

Department of the Interior, et al.

James Monroe, Esq., from the Solicitor’s Office, U.S.

Department of the Interior also appeared telephonically for the 

Department of the Interior.

 Trent W. Orr, Esq., and Andrea A. Treece, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Defendant-Intervenor Natural Resources Defense Council.

III. Remand for Explanation Regarding 

 Matters in the McDonald E-Mail

1. After discussion, the parties have differing views

concerning the extent and the substance of the remand for

explanation concerning matters in the McDonald e-mail of March

30, 2004. 

2. The Administrative Record is remanded back to the

Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service for

the purposes of explaining the contents of the McDonald e-mail. 

Case 1:02-cv-06461-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 09/05/06 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

3

The remand shall address issues concerning the accuracy,

completeness, consistency, independence, potential bias, and

efficacy of the status review and the underlying data and

analysis upon which it was based. This remand shall include

communication with Under Secretary McDonald and shall address

issues including, but not limited to: (1) accuracy and

completeness of information for the Status Review; (2)

independence of the peer review process; (3) whether or not

flawed assumptions or data were used; (4) the reliability and

completeness of Delta Smelt population estimates; and (5) how the

various factors within the Delta affect the Delta Smelt

population; whether there were “agreements” described by McDonald

and, if so the substance and purpose of the agreements. 

3. By October 30, 2006, Federal Defendants shall

supplement the Administrative Record in this matter (and file and

serve said supplement on all parties) with (1) the McDonald email; (2) a full, written explanation of the matters raised in

the McDonald e-mail and discussed in the immediately preceding

section of this order; and (3) any other contemporaneous

documents necessary to clarify or otherwise explain the matters

raised in the McDonald e-mail.

IV. Schedule For Future Briefings

1. Plaintiff Farm Bureau shall file any motion challenging

the adequacy of the Federal Defendants’ completion of this remand

and supplementation of the Administrative Record by November 14,

2006. If Plaintiff Farm Bureau files such a motion, Federal

Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall file any opposition by

November 28, 2006. Plaintiff Farm Bureau shall file its reply by

Case 1:02-cv-06461-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 09/05/06 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

4

December 12, 2006. The hearing on any such motion shall be on

January 5, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3. 

V. Summary Judgment.

1. Plaintiff shall file motions for summary judgment on

all claims by December 22, 2006. 

2. Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall file

oppositions thereto and cross-motions for summary judgment by

January 26, 2007. 

3. Plaintiffs shall file their replies and opposition to

Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment by February 9,

2007.

4. Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall file

their replies to Plaintiffs’ opposition by February 23, 2007. 

5. The cross-motions for summary judgment shall be heard

on March 23, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3. Extended time

is reserved for oral argument. 

6. The parties understand that depending upon results of

the remand that this schedule may have to be modified.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06461-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 09/05/06 Page 4 of 4