Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00850/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00850-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
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 

Meriel L. Darzen, OSB No. 113645, pro hac vice

meriel@crag.org 

Oliver J. H. Stiefel OSB No. 135436, pro hac vice

oliver@crag.org 

Crag Law Center 

3141 E Burnside Street 

Portland, Oregon 97214 

Phone: (503) 525-2725 

Fax: (503) 296-5454 

Thomas E. Wheeler, CSB No. 304191 

tom@wildcalifornia.org 

Environmental Protection Information Center 

145 G St., Ste. A 

Arcata, California 95521 

Phone: (206) 356-8689 

LOCAL COUNSEL 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

JOSEPH B. FRUEH 

Assistant United States Attorney 

501 I Street, Suite 10-100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

E-mail: joseph.frueh@usdoj.gov 

Telephone: (916) 554-2702 

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

Attorneys for Defendants 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KLAMATH-SISKIYOU WILDLANDS 

CENTER, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

PATRICIA GRANTHAM, in her official 

capacity as Forest Supervisor of the Klamath 

National Forest, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:20-cv-00850-TLN-AC 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

AMENDING INITIAL PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF 8) 

 

Case 2:20-cv-00850-TLN-AC Document 13 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 3
1 

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR

AMENDING INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and among the parties and subject to Court approval, that the 

Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF 8) shall be amended as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Environmental Protection Information 

Center, and Klamath Forest Alliance allege that Defendants United States Forest Service, Forest 

Supervisor Patricia Grantham, and Deputy Regional Forester Barnie Gyant approved and are proceeding 

with the Crawford Vegetation Management Project (“Crawford Project”) on the Klamath National 

Forest in violation of the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1604, and the National 

Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4332. Plaintiffs accordingly seek this Court’s review of the 

administrative record relevant to the Defendants’ actions vis-à-vis the Crawford Project. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 706; Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 697 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 2012). Such proceedings 

are generally exempt from the usual rules and procedures governing discovery in civil litigation. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(i), (f); Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1029 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Defendants will provide a draft of the administrative record to Plaintiffs on or before June 15, 

2020 and, after the parties meet and confer in good faith regarding the contents of the administrative 

record, shall lodge the certified administrative record on or before July 1, 2020. In the event that a 

motion to supplement the administrative record is deemed necessary, the parties will submit a revised 

briefing schedule that accounts for such a motion. 

2. This action shall be resolved by way of cross-motions for summary judgment, see Nw. 

Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir. 1994), according to the following 

briefing schedule: 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment ................................................. August 12, 2020 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and 

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment .................. September 9, 2020 

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Summary Judgment and 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment .................... October 7, 2020 

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Summary Judgment ............................. October 21, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00850-TLN-AC Document 13 Filed 06/10/20 Page 2 of 3
2 

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR

AMENDING INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and 

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, shall each be limited to 35 pages. Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of 

Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion, and Defendants’ Reply in Support of 

Summary Judgment, shall each be limited to 15 pages. 

3. Defendants shall have up to and including July 29, 2020, to file an Answer to the 

Complaint. 

Dated: June 4, 2020 CRAG LAW CENTER 

 

 By: /s/ Meriel L. Darzen (authorized 6/4/2020) 

 MERIEL L. DARZEN 

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 9, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 

 United States Attorney 

 By: /s/ Joseph B. Frueh 

 JOSEPH B. FRUEH 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00850-TLN-AC Document 13 Filed 06/10/20 Page 3 of 3