Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-46/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

COUNSEL IDENTIFICATION ON FINAL PAGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSOLIDATED SALMON CASES CASE NOS.

1:09-cv-1053-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1090-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1378-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1520-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-2452-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1625-OWW-SMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: 

EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL 

ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Judge: Honorable Oliver W. Wanger

Date: March 23-25, 2011

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY, et al. v. GARY F. LOCKE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1053)

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT v. 

NOAA, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1090)

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

GARY F. LOCKE, et al.

(Case No. 1:09-cv-1378)

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1520)

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-2452)

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. NMFS, et al.

(Case No. 1:09-cv-1625)

The parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, as identified below, have 

met and conferred and hereby propose the following schedule for the hearing on Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Injunctive Relief scheduled for March 23-25, 2011:

1. The parties shall serve and file their respective witness and exhibit lists by 5:00 

p.m. Wednesday, March 16, 2011. The exhibit lists shall identify those exhibits to be used for 

each party’s case-in-chief, including case-in-chief demonstrative exhibits, and need not include 

exhibits that may be used for cross-examination and/or rebuttal purposes, including demonstrative 

exhibits that may be used for cross-examination and/or rebuttal purposes. The exhibit lists shall 

identify the Administrative Record cite for each exhibit from the Administrative Record, or the 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 601 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 8
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

docket number if previously filed with the Court’s ECF system. For exhibits not included within 

the Administrative Record or previously filed with the Court’s ECF system, the parties shall serve 

on each other copies of the exhibits by email with their exhibit lists or on disks served by 

overnight delivery for receipt on Thursday, March 17, 2011, except that case-in-chief 

demonstrative exhibits shall be served for their receipt by 5:00 p.m. Monday, March 21, 2011. 

The parties agree to label their exhibits numerically using the following number ranges:

Plaintiffs: 0-400

Plaintiff-Intervenor Department of Water Resources: 401-500

Federal Defendants: 501-1000

Defendant-Intervenors: 1001-1500

2. The parties anticipate that they will offer and rely upon during the hearing updated 

testimony and information regarding project operations, flows, and the status and location of the 

species that includes or is based on data that was not available when the declarations and exhibits 

were filed and served. Nothing in this stipulation is intended to preclude admission of such 

evidence, provided the possibility of such evidence is noted in the parties’ exhibit lists filed and 

served on March 16, 2011.

3. Given the proximity of the hearing dates to the April 1, 2011 automatic trigger of 

RPA Action IV.2.1, the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor intend to seek a motion for temporary 

restraining order on Action IV.2.1. The parties have agreed, subject to Court approval, to an 

abbreviated motion and briefing schedule for such motion, as follows: Plaintiffs and PlaintiffIntervenor shall file a notice and request for the temporary restraining order by 5:00 p.m. on 

Wednesday, March 16, and shall rely on their briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction to 

support such motion and shall not file any additional evidence in support of the temporary 

restraining order; Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors shall rely on their briefing opposing the 

motion for preliminary injunction to oppose such motion, except to the extent that Defendant and 

Defendant-Intervenors intend to raise additional objections or defenses to such motion; any 

additional defenses or objections to the request for temporary restraining order shall be filed by 

5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 21, 2011, shall not include additional evidence, and shall be limited 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 601 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 8
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

to one page. The parties agree, subject to Court approval, that the Court may rule on the 

requested temporary restraining order from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing on Friday, 

March 25, 2011. Any bench ruling granting the requested temporary restraining order will expire 

at the end of the 14 day period set forth in Fed. R. Civ.P. 65(b)(2), unless before that time the 

Court, for good cause, affirmatively extends the order for a like period. As required by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 65(b)(2), the reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.

4. The parties have agreed to submit the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Strike, in 

which Defendant-Intervenors have joined, on the papers unless the Court has questions for the 

parties. As that motion is not directed against witnesses who will be presenting live testimony per 

paragraph 5 below, the parties respectfully request that the Court reserve its ruling on the motion 

until it issues its decision on the motion for preliminary injunction. The time not used by the 

Court for any questions on the motion to strike shall be divided evenly between (a) Plaintiffs and 

Plaintiff-Intervenor on the one hand, and (b) Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors on 

the other hand.

5. Based on a court day of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day and the Court’s routine 

practice of scheduling one 15 minute break each morning, one 90 minute break at lunch, and one 

15 minute break each afternoon, the parties anticipate that there will be 19.5 court hours for 

evidence and argument. Therefore, each side will be allocated a total of 9.75 hours to be used by 

each side in its discretion among opening statements, arguments, and direct, cross and rebuttal 

examinations, subject to (1) the witness availability issues that are included in the order of 

witnesses below and (2) not exceeding the total hours per side per case. Any party may at its sole 

discretion cede all or a portion of its time to any other party.

6. The following is the order of opening statements, witnesses and closing arguments. 

This has been set based on the parties’ best estimates of time for examinations. If the 

examination of any witness finishes early, the next witness in order will be called to testify, 

regardless of the date scheduled below, except that per witness availability, Mr. Steve Cramer 

shall testify on March 24.

March 23, 2011

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 601 Filed 03/17/11 Page 3 of 8
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Opening Statements

Terry Erlewine

Jim Snow

Bradley Cavallo

March 24, 2011

Steve Cramer

Jeffrey Stuart

Steve Cramer Rebuttal 

March 25, 2011

Paul Fujitani 

Dr. Cameron Speir

Dr. David Sunding

Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor rebuttal witnesses

Closing Arguments

7. The parties’ rebuttal witnesses shall be limited to witnesses who provided 

declarations in support of the parties’ briefs in support of, or in opposition to, the motions for 

preliminary injunction.

8. In addition to the foregoing live testimony, the parties further stipulate that the 

following witnesses may testify via their previously submitted declarations and that the parties 

will not raise a hearsay objection against the admissibility of such declarations on the grounds 

that the declaration is a statement that was made other than while testifying at the trial or hearing: 

Russ Freeman, Dr. Frank Gornick, Daniel G. Nelson, Robert Silva, Todd Allen, Joe Del Bosque, 

Chris Hurd, Andy Souza, Margaret Beckett, William F. “Zeke” Grader, Gary Hayward Slaughter 

Mulcahy, Peter Grenell, and Richard Pool. In so stipulating, the parties against whom the 

declarations have been offered do not stipulate that the facts stated within the declarations are 

undisputed or waive any other evidentiary objections.

9. As the evidence and written and oral arguments regarding the merits previously 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 601 Filed 03/17/11 Page 4 of 8
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

have been presented to the Court as part of the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, 

heard by the Court on December 16 and 17, 2010, the parties further stipulate that they may rely 

upon, and are not required to re-present, that evidence and those arguments for their respective 

positions on the “likelihood of success” element of the pending motion for preliminary injunction

and motion for temporary restraining order, and that such arguments and evidence shall be limited 

to the Court’s consideration of the Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ likelihood of success on 

the merits. However, Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors restate their objection to the Court’s 

reliance on extra-record testimony and evidence for purposes of evaluating Plaintiffs’ and 

Plaintiff-Intervenors’ likelihood of success on the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act 

claims.

SO STIPULATED

Dated: March 16, 2011 DIEPENBROCK HARRISON

A Professional Corporation 

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

A Professional Corporation

By /s/ Eileen M. Diepenbrock

EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK

DANIEL J. O’HANLON

Attorneys for Plaintiffs SAN LUIS & DELTAMENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY and 

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

Dated: March 16, 2011 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP

By /s/ Steven O. Sims

STEVEN O. SIMS

MICHELLE C. KALES

Attorneys for Plaintiffs WESTLANDS WATER 

DISTRICT

Dated: March_16, 2011 BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP

By /s/ Gregory K. Wilkinson

GREGORY K. WILKINSON

STEVEN M. ANDERSON

Attorneys for Plaintiff STATE WATER 

CONTRACTORS

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 601 Filed 03/17/11 Page 5 of 8
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Dated: March_16, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 601 Filed 03/17/11 Page 6 of 8
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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

-7-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

By /s/ Christopher J. Carr

CHRISTOPHER J. CARR

WILLIAM M. SLOAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff METROPOLITAN WATER 

DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Dated: March_16, 2011 NOSSAMAN LLP

By /s/ Paul S. Weiland

PAUL S. WEILAND

AUDREY HUANG

Attorneys for Plaintiffs KERN COUNTY WATER 

AGENCY and COALITION FOR A 

SUSTAINABLE DELTA

Dated: March_16, 2011 KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of the State of California

By /s/ Clifford T. Lee

CLIFFORD T. LEE

CECILIA L. DENNIS

ALLISON GOLDSMITH

Deputies Attorney General

Attorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER 

RESOURCES

Dated: March_16, 2011 IGNACIA S. MORENO, Assistant Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief

By /s/ Bridget Kennedy McNeil

BRIDGET KENNEDY McNEIL, Trial Attorney

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section

Attorneys for FEDERAL DEFENDANTS

Dated: March_16, 2011 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

By /s/ Katherine S. Poole

KATHERINE S. POOLE

DOUG OBEGI

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 601 Filed 03/17/11 Page 7 of 8
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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

-8-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXHIBITS, WITNESSES AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Dated: March_16 2011 EARTHJUSTICE

By /s/ Erin M. Tobin

MICHAEL R. SHERWOOD

ERIN M. TOBIN

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors CALIFORNIA 

TROUT, FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE FEDERATION 

OF FLY FISHERS, PACIFIC COAST 

FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S 

ASSOCIATIONS/INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES 

RESOURCES, SACRAMENTO RIVER 

PRESERVATION TRUST, SAN FRANCISCO 

BAYKEEPER, THE BAY INSTITUTE, 

WINNEMEM WINTU TRIBE

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2011 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 601 Filed 03/17/11 Page 8 of 8