Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

1 Plaintiffs represent to the court that these issues have

been fully briefed. The parties are encouraged to extract the

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-88-1658 LKK

Plaintiffs,

O R D E R

v.

KIRK C. RODGERS, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

A Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference was held in the 

above-captioned case on April 28, 2005. During that conference,

the parties discussed with the court two legal questions: (1)

whether Section 5937 preempts the planning mandate of Section

3406(a) of the CVPIA, and (2) what the appropriate scope of the

court’s remedial authority is under the APA. Based on that

discussion, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. The parties are directed to submit their arguments on

these two issues according to the following schedule1:

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1104 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 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

relevant arguments from previously submitted briefs, if this is

indeed the case. 

2

a. Plaintiffs are directed to submit a motion covering

these issues within ten (10) days of this order; 

b. Defendants must file their opposition within fifteen

(15) days of plaintiffs’ motion;

c. Plaintiffs will have ten (10) days to reply; and

d. A hearing will be set if the court believes it

necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 28, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1104 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 2