Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01395/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01395-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 30:181 Environment: Review of Agency Action

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA OAK FOUNDATION, )

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT )

SOCIETY, CALIFORNIA INDIAN )

BASKETWEAVERS ASSOCIATION, )

CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVE )

TO TOXICS, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) 

)

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, )

TOM QUINN, in his official )

capacity as Forest Supervisor )

for the Stanislaus National )

Forest, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05-cv-01395-REC-SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

(administrative proceeding review)

Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief

Filing Deadline: 5/12/06

Defendants’ Opposition Brief

Filing Deadline: 6/16/06

Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief

Filing Deadline: 7/21/06

Defendants’ Sur-Reply Brief

Filing Deadline: 8/18/06

Hearing: 9/25/06, 1:30 p.m.,

Ctrm. 3/OWW (est. 1-2 hrs.)

1. Date of Scheduling Conference:

February 28, 2006.

2. Appearances of Counsel:

Michael W. Graf, Esq., appeared telephonically on behalf of

plaintiffs.

Assistant United States Attorney Kristi C. Kapetan appeared

on behalf of defendants.

//

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 6
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

3. The Pleadings:

A. Summary of the Pleadings.

This case is primarily a NEPA challenge to a

decision of the Forest Service to approve the Larson Reforestation

and Fuel Reduction Project ("Larson Project") within the Stanislaus

National Forest.

B. Orders Re: Amendment of Pleadings.

No amendments are proposed at this time. However,

plaintiffs will need to review the administrative record to

determine whether to seek leave to amend their pleadings. 

4. Factual Summary:

A. Admitted Facts which are deemed proven without 

further proceedings.

(1) The Larson project area is located on National

Forest System lands in Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties, California,

on the Stanislaus National Forest.

(2) The Larson project area lies primarily within

the Bull Creek and Ned Gulch watersheds, with very small portions

in the Merced River and South Fork Tuolumne River watersheds.

(3) In 1987, the Larson Fire burned as part of the

147,000 acre Stanislaus Complex Fire.

B. Contested Facts.

(1) All other facts.

5. Legal Issues:

A. Uncontested.

(1) Venue

B. Contested.

(1) All other legal issues.

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 6
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

6. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction:

This case will not be assigned for all purposes,

including trial, to the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States

Magistrate Judge, as the parties do not so consent at this time.

7. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Dates:

Defendants contend no discovery is necessary as this is a

review of an administrative proceeding. See, e.g., Hall v. Norton,

266 F.3d 969, 977 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendant is currently

finalizing the administrative record, expects to file it at or

before the scheduling conference, and will serve plaintiffs with a

copy at that time.

Plaintiffs will need to examine the administrative record

to determine whether the record should be supplemented. If so,

plaintiffs will seek an order allowing supplementation of the

record. Additionally, after reviewing the record, plaintiffs may

seek leave to amend their pleadings or to proceed with limited

discovery in this otherwise record review case on matters relating

to defendant’s past and present actions in the Project area that

address the legal issues raised in this proceeding.

All plaintiffs will join in a single set of joint briefs.

BRIEF/HEARING FILING DEADLINE 

Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief: May 12, 2006

Defendants’ Opposition Brief: June 16, 2006

Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief: July 21, 2006

Defendants’ Sur-Reply Brief: August 18, 2006

Hearing Date:

Hearing Time:

Hearing Length:

Courtroom:

District Judge:

September 25, 2006

1:30 p.m.

1-2 hrs. (est.)

3 ~ 7th Floor

Oliver W. Wanger (OWW)

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 03/01/06 Page 3 of 6
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

8. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master,

or other Techniques to Shorten Trial:

Not applicable at this time.

9. Related Matters Pending:

There are no pending related matters.

10. Compliance with Federal Procedure:

The Court requires compliance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

District of California. To aid the Court in the efficient

administration of this case, all counsel are expected to

familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

California, and to keep abreast of any amendments thereto. The

Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to

efficiently handle its increasing caseload. Sanctions will be

imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided in both the

Fed.R.Civ.P. and the Local Rules.

11. Compliance with Electronic Filing Requirement:

On January 3, 2005, the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California became an electronic case

management/filing district (CM/ECF). Unless excused by the Court,

or by Local Rule, attorneys shall file all documents electronically

as of January 3, 2005 in all actions pending before the court.

While Pro Se Litigants are exempt from this requirement, the court

will scan in all documents filed by pro se litigants, and the

official court record in all cases will be electronic. Attorneys

are required to file electronically in pro se cases. More

information regarding the Court’s implementation of CM/ECF can be

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 03/01/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

found on the court’s web site at www.caed.uscourts.gov, including

the Court’s Amended Local Rules effective January 3, 2005, the

Court’s CM/ECF Final Procedures, and the Court’s CM/ECF User’s

Manual.

While the Clerk's Office will not refuse to file a

proffered paper document, the Clerk's Office will scan it and, if

improperly filed, notify the Court that the document was filed in

an improper format. An order to show cause (OSC) may be issued in

appropriate cases regarding an attorney's disregard for the

requirement to utilize electronic filing, or other violations of

these electronic filing procedures. See L.R. 11-110, L.R.

5-133(d)(3).

If counsel has not already done so, counsel must register

for CM/ECF as soon as possible. On-line registration is available

at www.caed.uscourts.gov. Once registered, counsel will receive a

login and password in approximately one (1) week. Counsel must be

registered to file documents on-line. See L.R. 5-135(g). Counsel

are responsible for knowing the rules governing electronic filing

in the Eastern District. Please review the Court’s Local Rules

effective January 3, 2005, available on the Court’s web site.

12. Effect of this Order:

The foregoing Order represents the best estimate of the

Court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to bring this case

to resolution. If the parties determine at any time that the

schedule outlined in this Order cannot be met, counsel are ordered

to notify the Court immediately so that adjustments may be made,

either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

//

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 03/01/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein

will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or

declarations and, where appropriate, attached exhibits which

establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT IN THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 03/01/06 Page 6 of 6