Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04106/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04106-7/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INC., et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PETER WATSON, et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 02-04106 JSW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, STRIKING

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, AND RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ON MERITS

On November 4, 2005, the Court granted the Defendants’ leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of a portion of the Court’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment. Plaintiffs have moved the Court to vacate this order, arguing that the Court exceeded

its authority and renewing the argument made in opposition to the motion for leave to file the

motion for reconsideration, that the matter should be resolved on the merits. On November 21,

2005, Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental brief in support of their motion to vacate, in which

they point to additional evidence Defendants submitted with the motion for reconsideration to

support their request to vacate the November 4, 2005 Order.

The Court’s decision to grant Defendants leave to file a motion for reconsideration was

based upon its understanding that the Defendants’ argument would be based upon the two GAO 

Case 3:02-cv-04106-JSW Document 140 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 When it granted Defendants leave to file the motion for reconsideration, the

Court expressly noted that it believed Defendants had not met Local Rule 7-9(b)(1) diligence

standards. Defendants actions in “searching” for additional evidence further supports that

conclusion. 

2

reports that Defendants submitted as exhibits to their motion for leave to file their motion for

reconsideration. 

The Court also expected that the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration would be based

upon a legal argument as to why those two GAO reports would have materially altered the

Court’s prior decision. Until it received the Opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate, the Court

(and it suspects the Plaintiffs) had no reason to believe otherwise. (See Opp. at n.3.)

According to Defendant OPIC, however, following the Court’s November 4, 2005

Order, it “began looking for documents that might be related to the 1985 and 1988 GAO reports

described in Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration after the Court

allowed Defendant OPIC to move forward with the Motion for Reconsideration.” (Declaration

of Connie Downs in Support of Defendant OPIC’s Motion for Reconsideration, ¶ 3.) Defendant

OPIC submits nineteen such documents that “were located in the course of that search in

OPIC’s archives.” (Id.)

1

Although Defendants may have misunderstood the Court’s intent, they have created a

situation that requires the Court to reconsider its November 4, Order. Thus, on further review,

the Court finds that its Order granting Defendant OPIC leave to file a motion for reconsideration

was improvidently granted, it is HEREBY VACATED. The motion for reconsideration is

ORDERED to be stricken from the record. This ruling is without prejudice to Defendant OPIC

raising the issue set forth in the motion for reconsideration in its briefing on the merits. If OPIC

intends to rely on the evidence submitted with the motion for reconsideration or any other

evidence discovered that relates to this issue, it is ORDERED to formally produce such

evidence to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs may raise any objections they may have to the consideration of

such evidence in their briefing on the merits. This Order fully resolves the matter of

reconsideration, and the Court shall not entertain any further briefing on this issue.

Case 3:02-cv-04106-JSW Document 140 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

It is FURTHER ORDERED that this matter shall be set for hearing on cross-motions for

summary judgment on the merits on Friday March 31, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

The Court FURTHER ORDERS the parties to meet and confer by telephone and to

submit by December 2, 2005, a joint briefing schedule to the Court that provides for staggered

cross-motions for summary judgment, i.e. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motions would

be combined with their cross-motions for summary judgment or vice versa. 

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the briefing on the cross-motions shall be

completed by March 3, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-04106-JSW Document 140 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 3