Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05141/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
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

[Counsel Identification on Signature Page] 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

THE SIERRA CLUB, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

UNITED STATES NATIONAL MARINE 

FISHERIES SERVICE and UNITED 

STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 

 Defendants, 

 and 

 UTILITY ACT WATER GROUP, 

 Defendant-Intervenor. 

Case No. 3:14−CV−05141-EMC 

JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 

ORDER FOR A STAY OF THE 

PROCEEDINGS 

 COME NOW Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Defendant-Intervenor and file this joint 

stipulated request for a stay of the proceedings in the above-captioned case. In support of this 

stipulated request, the parties state as follows: 

 1. The claims in this case concern a joint biological opinion issued by the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(“NMFS”), pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The 

biological opinion analyzes the effects of a final rule issued by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (“EPA”) pursuant to Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 

U.S.C. § 1326(b), 79 Fed. Reg. 48,299 (Aug. 15, 2014) (hereinafter “Final § 316(b) Rule”). 

Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49 Filed02/13/15 Page1 of 5

AND RESETTING CMC

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 1 of 16
 

Sierra Club v. NMFS, No. 3:14-CV-05141-EMC 

Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order for a Stay 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

Prior to filing the instant case, some of the Plaintiffs in this action petitioned for review of 

EPA’s Final § 316(b) Rule pursuant to the judicial review provision of the Clean Water Act, 

which commits such actions to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Court of Appeals. That 

petition has been consolidated with five other petitions for review of that Rule; the consolidated 

petitions are currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See 

Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition v. EPA, No. 14-4645 (lead case) (2d. Cir.). 

 2. On January 12, 2015, the Utility Water Act Group (“UWAG”) moved to 

intervene in the instant litigation. See ECF No. 23. That unopposed motion was granted on 

February 11, 2015. See ECF No. 47. 

 3. On February 6, 2015, the petitioners and respondents in the pending petitions for 

review jointly moved the Second Circuit to allow petitioners’ challenges to the biological 

opinion concerning the Final § 316(b) Rule to be brought in conjunction with their Clean Water 

Act challenges to the Rule. See Exhibit A (“Consent Motion”). As part of that motion, the 

Plaintiffs in this case committed to dismissing the instant litigation if and when the Second 

Circuit grants the Consent Motion and grants the intervention of the non-petitioning Plaintiffs 

from this case. Id. at ¶ 3. 

 4. On February 9, 2015, Federal Defendants moved to dismiss the instant litigation 

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative, moved to transfer the case to the 

Second Circuit. See ECF No. 46. Intervenor-Defendant UWAG is directed to file its motion to 

dismiss by February 18, 2015. See ECF No. 47. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motions are due 

March 4, 2015, and replies are due March 11, 2015. Id. The motions are set for hearing on 

April 2, 2015. Id. 

 5. There is a case management conference currently set for April 23, 2015, which 

triggers two other deadlines: (1) a case management report due by April 16, 2015; and (2) the 

March 12, 2015 deadline for paperwork pertaining to the parties’ Alternative Dispute 

Resolution obligations. 

 6. Because of the potential for the Second Circuit’s resolution of the Consent 

Motion to render further proceedings in this case unnecessary, the parties propose that the 

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 2 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49 Filed02/13/15 Page2 of 5
 

Sierra Club v. NMFS, No. 3:14-CV-05141-EMC 

Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order for a Stay 3

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

instant litigation, including all deadlines referenced above, be stayed until the Second Circuit 

acts on the Consent Motion. Within ten days of the Second Circuit’s action on the Consent 

Motion, the parties will notify this Court of the decision and how it impacts this litigation. If the 

Second Circuit denies the consent motion or the non-petitioning plaintiffs are denied 

intervention, UWAG’s motion to dismiss will (if it has not already been filed) be due within 7 

days after such denial; Plaintiffs’ response to the motions to dismiss will be due within 17 days 

of such denial; and all replies will be due 7 days after the filing of any such response. 

 Respectfully submitted this 13th day of February, 2015, 

 _/s/ Eric E. Huber (with permission)______ 

 ERIC HUBER (Colorado Bar No. 40664) 

 (appearance pro hac vice) 

 SIERRA CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM 

 1650 38th Street, Suite 102W 

 Boulder, CO 80301 

 (303) 449-5595 

 (303) 449-6520 (facsimile) 

 eric.huber@sierraclub.org 

 GREG WANNIER (California Bar No. 275349) 

 SIERRA CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM 

 85 Second Street, Second Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94105 

 (415) 977-5646 

 (415) 977-5793 (facsimile) 

 greg.wannier@sierraclub.org

 REED SUPER (California Bar No. 164706) 

 SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC 

 411 State Street, #2R 

 Brooklyn, NY 11217 

 (212) 242-2273 

 (855) 242-7956 (facsimile) 

 reed@superlawgroup.com 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sierra Club, Inc., Center for 

 Biological Diversity, Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., California 

 Coastkeeper Alliance, Riverkeeper, Inc., Louisiana 

 Environmental Action Network, Suncoast Waterkeeper, 

 Inc., and Humboldt Baykeeper 

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 3 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49 Filed02/13/15 Page3 of 5
 

Sierra Club v. NMFS, No. 3:14-CV-05141-EMC 

Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order for a Stay 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

 JOHN C. CRUDEN, Assistant Attorney General 

 Environment & Natural Resources Division 

 SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief 

 Wildlife and Marine Resources Section 

 /s/ Bridget K. McNeil 

 BRIDGET KENNEDY McNEIL 

 Senior Trial Attorney (CO Bar #34299) 

 999 18th Street, South Terrace, Suite 370 

 Denver, CO 80202 

 Ph: 303-844-1484 

 Fax: 303-844-1350 

 bridget.mcneil@usdoj.gov 

 Attorneys for Federal Defendants

/s/ Andrew J. Turner (with permission) 

KRISTY A. N. BULLEIT (D.C. Bar No. 398747) 

ANDREW J. TURNER (D.C. Bar No. 471179) 

KARMA B. BROWN (D.C. Bar No. 479774) 

KERRY L. MCGRATH (D.C. Bar No. 997277) 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Telephone: (202) 955-1500 

Facsimile: (202) 778-2201 

kbulleit@hunton.com 

aturner@hunton.com 

kbbrown@hunton.com 

kmcgrath@hunton.com

JAMES N. CHRISTMAN (Va. Bar No. 13752) 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 

951 East Byrd Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Telephone: (804) 788-8368 

Facsimile: (804) 788-8218 

jchristman@hunton.com

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 4 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49 Filed02/13/15 Page4 of 5
 

Sierra Club v. NMFS, No. 3:14-CV-05141-EMC 

Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order for a Stay 5

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

TIMOTHY J. CARLSTEDT (Cal. Bar No. 168855) 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

575 Market Street, Suite 3700 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 975-3700 

Facsimile: (415) 975-3701 

tcarlstedt@hunton.com 

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor 

Utility Water Act Group

 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 , 2015 

 The Honorable Edward M. Chen 

Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49 Filed02/13/15 Page5 of 5

CMC is reset from 4/23/15

to 8/27/15 at 9:30 a.m. A joint CMC Statement shall be filed by 8/20/15. 

2/17 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 5 of 16
Exhibit A

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 6 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

COOLING WATER INTAKE 

STRUCTURE COALITION, et al., 

Petitioners, 

v. 

UNITED STATES 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 14-4645(L) and 

consolidated cases 14-4657, 

14-4659, 14-4664, 14-4667, and 

14-4670 

CONSENT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PETITIONS TO ADD 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE AND U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE AS RESPONDENTS AND FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 

This matter is before the Court on Petitions for Review under Clean Water 

Act § 509(b)(1) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(“EPA’s”) Clean Water Act § 316(b) Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 48,299 (August 15, 2014) 

(hereinafter “Final § 316(b) Rule”). The parties hereby submit this Consent 

Motion requesting the following relief. 

 First, Petitioners Utility Water Act Group (“UWAG”) and Entergy 

Corporation, Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition, and American Petroleum 

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 7 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page2 of 11
2 

Institute (collectively “Industry Petitioners”) and the Environmental Petitioners1

jointly move for leave for Petitioners to amend their Petitions for Review to (1) 

include review of the biological opinion (“BiOp”) prepared by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (jointly “the Services”) 

regarding the § 316(b) Rule issued by Respondent EPA under the Clean Water Act 

(“CWA”), and (2) add the Services as respondents. Respondent EPA consents to 

this request. 

 Currently pending is UWAG and Entergy’s Motion to Amend Petition or 

Stay these Proceedings in the Alternative (ECF No. 42), which seeks to amend 

UWAG and Entergy’s petition to add the Services as respondents. UWAG and 

Entergy agree that their pending motion (ECF No. 42) will be moot if the Court 

grants this Consent Motion. UWAG and Entergy therefore ask the Court to defer 

acting on their motion and rule first on this Consent Motion. UWAG and Entergy 

will withdraw their pending motion (ECF No. 42) if the Court grants this Consent 

Motion. 

 

1

 American Littoral Society, Environment America, Environment Massachusetts, 

Riverkeeper, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council, Incorporated, Delaware 

Riverkeeper Network, Raritan Baykeeper, Inc., DBA NY/NJ Baykeeper, 

Hackensack Riverkeeper, Casco Baykeeper, Save the Bay - Narragansett Bay, 

Scenic Hudson, Inc., Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., Soundkeeper, Inc., 

Surfrider Foundation 

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 8 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page3 of 11
3 

 Second, Respondent EPA moves the Court to extend the deadline for filing 

the certified list of documents comprising the record for judicial review until 90 

days from the date of the Court’s order on this motion. Petitioners consent to 

EPA’s request. 

 As further support of this Consent Motion, the parties state as follows. 

1. As part of the process for promulgating the Final § 316(b) Rule at 

issue in this case, EPA consulted with the Services pursuant to Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). In May 2014, the 

Services provided EPA with a final Biological Opinion, concluding that the Final 

Rule was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or 

destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. EPA subsequently signed 

the Final § 316(b) Rule on May 16, 2014, and that rule was published in the 

Federal Register on August 15, 2014. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 23.2, EPA 

promulgated the rule for purposes of judicial review on August 29, 2014. 79 Fed. 

Reg. at 48,300. EPA relied upon the Services’ BiOp in the Final Rule and 

included the BiOp and associated documents in its administrative record for the 

Rule. Id. at 43,881. 

2. The parties agree this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review the 

Final § 316(b) Rule under CWA § 509(b)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(E). Industry 

Petitioners’ and Respondent EPA’s position is that this Court’s jurisdiction under 

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 9 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page4 of 11
4 

CWA § 509(b)(1) also encompasses all issues that “inhere” in the controversy, 

including challenges to the Services’ BiOp, which is reviewable in its own right 

and “inheres” in the controversy. City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 

U.S. 320, 336 (1958) (holding that “all objections” to the agency action “must be 

made in the Court of Appeals or not at all”); Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 420 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2005), rev’d on other 

grounds by National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 

(2007) (holding that CWA § 509(b)(1) encompassed review of a FWS biological 

opinion accompanying an EPA CWA rule, even though challenges to biological 

opinions issued under the Endangered Species Act are otherwise ordinarily 

reviewed in district courts); City of Tacoma v. FERC, 460 F.3d 53, 76 (D.C. Cir. 

2006) (“when a BiOp is prepared in the course of a FERC licensing proceeding, 

the only means of challenging the substantive validity of the BiOp is on review of 

FERC’s decision in the court of appeals”). See Respondent EPA’s Response to the 

UWAG and Entergy Motion to Amend Petition or Stay Proceedings in the 

Alternative and EPA’s Motion to Stay the Deadline for Filing the Certified List of 

Documents Comprising the Record for Judicial Review (ECF No. 85-1) at 8-13; 

and UWAG and Entergy Motion to Amend Petition or Stay Proceedings in the 

Alternative (ECF No. 42) at 5-7. 

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 10 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page5 of 11
5 

Environmental Petitioners’ position is that although this Court has 

supplemental jurisdiction over the Services to review the BiOp, this Court does not 

have exclusive jurisdiction under CWA § 509(b)(1) to conduct this review. See

Env. Pet. Response to UWAG Motion to Amend (ECF No. 79), citing inter alia 

the plain language of CWA § 509(b)(1); Mianus River Preservation Comm. v. 

EPA, 541 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 1976)(§ 509(b)(1) strictly construed to apply only to 

the Administrator of EPA); Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec.Corp. v. EPA, 587 F.2d 549, 

556 (2d Cir. 1978) (supplemental jurisdiction under § 509(b)(1) is not exclusive). 

Nonetheless, however this Court’s jurisdiction is viewed, the parties agree 

that in this case this Court has and should exercise jurisdiction over the parties and 

claims as set forth in this motion. Therefore, it is appropriate to permit Petitioners 

leave to amend their petitions to include claims arising from the Services’ BiOp. 

3. Some of the Environmental Petitioners in this case also are plaintiffs 

in a pending case against the Services seeking review of the BiOp Opinion in the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Sierra Club v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 3:14-CV-05141 (N.D. Cal.) (the “N.D. 

Cal. case”). Some of the plaintiffs in the N.D. Cal. case are not petitioners in this 

action (the “non-petitioner plaintiffs”). The Industry Petitioners and EPA agree 

not to oppose a motion to intervene by the non-petitioner plaintiffs to participate in 

this action to challenge the Services’ BiOp, provided that (1) those plaintiffs file 

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 11 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page6 of 11
6 

their motion to intervene within ten days of an order granting the relief requested 

in this motion, and (2) those plaintiffs’ intervention has no impact on the briefing 

format, the number of briefs filed, or the length of the briefs filed in this matter. 

Once the Environmental Petitioners’ petitions are amended to add the BiOp claims 

and Services in this case, and the other plaintiffs are permitted intervention in this 

case, the plaintiffs in the N.D. Cal. case will dismiss that action.2

 

4. The Second Circuit Clerk’s Office has advised counsel for EPA that 

the certified list of documents that comprise the record for review was due on 

January 28, 2015.3

 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 17(b)(1)(B), an agency may file a 

certified list of the documents and other materials comprising the record for 

judicial review, in lieu of filing the entire record. The record in this case is 

voluminous, and therefore EPA and, if the Court grants this motion, the Services 

intend to file a certified list of the documents comprising the record in this case. 

 

2

 In the event that the plaintiffs in the N.D. Cal. case do not dismiss that action 

before the United States’ deadline for filing a response to the complaint, the United 

States hereby reserves its right to file a motion to dismiss the complaint. 

3

 On January 23, 2015, EPA moved the court to stay the deadline for filing the 

administrative record. Respondent EPA’s Response to the UWAG and Entergy 

Motion to Amend Petition or Stay Proceedings in the Alternative and EPA’s 

Motion to Stay the Deadline for Filing the Certified List of Documents Comprising 

the Record for Judicial Review (ECF No. 85-1). If the Court grants all of the relief 

in this Consent Motion, EPA’s prior motion to stay the deadline for the 

administrative record would be moot.

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 12 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page7 of 11
7 

5. If the Court grants this motion and permits review of the BiOp as part 

of the challenges to EPA’s Final § 316(b) Rule, the record for judicial review will 

necessarily include the administrative records of EPA and the Services. To insure 

that the record for judicial review is inclusive of all documents relevant to the 

petitions, and to allow additional time for EPA and the Services to complete the 

compilation and certification of their administrative records, EPA moves for an 

extension of time of 90 days from the date of the Court’s order on this motion to 

file the administrative records of all three agencies with the Court. Petitioners 

consent to the granting of such motion. 

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this 

Consent Motion and issue an order (1) granting leave for Petitioners to amend their 

petitions to include review of the BiOp prepared by Services in connection with 

EPA’s Final § 316(b) Rule and to add the Services as respondents; and (2) 

extending the deadline for filing the certified list of documents that comprise the 

record for judicial review until 90 days after the date of the Court’s order on this 

Consent Motion. 

Dated: February 6, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

JOHN C. CRUDEN 

Assistant Attorney General 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

 

 /s/ Jessica O’Donnell 

JESSICA O’DONNELL 

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 13 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page8 of 11
8 

MARTHA C. MANN 

United States Department of Justice 

Environmental Defense Section 

P.O. Box 7611 

Washington, DC 20044 

Tel: (202) 305-0851 

jessica.o’donnell@usdoj.gov 

martha.mann@usdoj.gov 

SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief 

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section 

BRIDGET KENNEDY McNEIL 

Senior Trial Attorney 

999 18th Street, South Terrace, Suite 370 

Denver, CO 80202 

Tel: 303-844-1484 

bridget.mcneil@usdoj.gov 

Counsel for Respondent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 /s/ Kristy A. N. Bulleit (with permission)

Kristy A. N. Bulleit 

Andrew J. Turner 

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 

2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20037 

(202) 955-1547 

James N. Christman 

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 

Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 

951 East Byrd Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 

(804) 788-8200 

Counsel for Petitioners Utility Water Act Group 

and Entergy Corporation 

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 14 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page9 of 11
9 

 /s/ Fredric P. Andes (with permission)

Fredric P. Andes 

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 

One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400 

Chicago, IL 60606-2809 

(312) 214-8310 

Jeffrey S. Longsworth 

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 

1717 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20006-4623 

(202) 408-6918 

Counsel for American Petroleum Institute 

 /s/ Russell Frye (with permission)

Russell S. Frye 

FRYELAW PLLC 

1101 30th St., N.W. Suite 220 

Washington, DC 20007-3769 

(202) 572-8267 

Counsel for Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition 

 /s/ Eric E. Huber (with permission) 

Eric E. Huber 

SIERRA CLUB 

1650 38th St. Ste. 102W 

Boulder, CO 80301 

(303) 449-5595 ext. 101 

Counsel for Environmental Petitioners

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 15 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page10 of 11
10 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on February 6, 2015, I caused a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing Consent Motion to be served via the court’s CM/ECF system on all 

registered counsel.

. 

 s/ Jessica O’Donnell 

 Jessica O’Donnell 

 United States Department of Justice 

Case 3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document 50 Filed 02/17/15 Page 16 of 16 Case3:14-cv-05141-EMC Document49-1 Filed02/13/15 Page11 of 11