Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-22/pdf.json

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

---

PRESENTED BY: 

IGNACIA S. MORENO, Assistant Attorney General 

United States Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

JEAN E. WILLIAMS, Section Chief 

SETH M. BARSKY, Assistant Chief 

BRIDGET KENNEDY McNeil, Trial Attorney (Co. Bar No. 034299) 

BRADLEY H. OLIPHANT, Trial Attorney (Cal. Bar No. 216468) 

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section 

Benjamin Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7369 

Washington, D.C. 20044-7369 

Ph: (202) 305-0237 / Fax: (202) 305-0275 

WILLIAM J. SHAPIRO, Trial Attorney (CO State Bar 030929) 

U. S. Department of Justice 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

501 I Street, Suite 9-700 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Ph: 916-930-2207/ Fax: 916-930-2010 

william.shapiro@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Federal Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

THE CONSOLIDATED SALMONID CASES 

 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 1:09-cv-1053-OWW-DLB 

ORDER ON THE FEDERAL 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE 

This matter came on for hearing on March 30, 2010, after being fully briefed. See

Docket Nos. 252,272, 276, 277, 279, 280, and 294. Federal Defendants, the Secretary of the 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 319 Filed 04/20/10 Page 1 of 3
United States Department of Commerce, Gary F. Locke, the United States Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Acting Assistant Administrator James W. Balsiger, Administrator for the Southwest 

Region Rodney R. McInnis, the United States Department of the Interior, United States Bureau 

of Reclamation, Commissioner of Reclamation Michael L. Connor, and Donald R. Glaser, as 

Director of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region were represented by Bradley H. Oliphant and 

Bridget Kennedy McNeil, Trial Attorneys, Wildlife and Marine Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District were 

represented by Thomas Birmingham, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard by Daniel J. 

O’Hanlon, Esq. and Diepenbrock Harrison by Eileen M. Diepenbrock, Esq. Plaintiff-Intervenor 

California Department of Water Resources was represented by Daniel S. Harris, Deputy 

Attorney General, California Attorney General’s Office. 

The Court has fully considered the briefs filed in support of, and in opposition to, the 

Motion to Strike as well as the oral arguments presented on March 30, 2010. Accordingly, the 

Court now memorializes the oral ruling given on March 30, 2010. To the extent that the Court 

later modified this ruling during the evidentiary hearing conducted March 30-April 2, 2010, 

those changes are reflected in the appropriate portion of the transcripts and are not memorialized 

below. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Declaration of Steven P. Cramer (Doc. No. 167). 

The Court DENIES the motion to strike as to paragraphs 1 through 14, 16, and 18 

through 20. The Court GRANTS the motion to strike as to Cramer’s opinion that NMFS failed 

to consider other remedies than controlling particle tracks to guide migratory pathways of 

salmon and smolts in paragraph 15. The Court RESERVES its ruling on paragraph 17 subject to 

an offer of proof. 

2. The Second Supplemental Declaration of Steven P. Cramer (Doc. No. 244). 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 319 Filed 04/20/10 Page 2 of 3
The Court DENIES the motion to strike as to paragraphs 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 10 

through 11, and 20 through 25. The Court GRANTS the motion to strike as to paragraphs 9, 28 

and 29, paragraph 32 to 36 except to explain the adult to adult survival studies referenced in 

those paragraphs and not for any other purpose. The Court GRANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

the motion to strike as to paragraphs 14 through 19, 26 and 30. The Court RESERVES its ruling 

on paragraphs 12, 13 and 27. Paragraph 4 is a summary of the findings that come after it and is 

derivative of the Court’s rulings on those paragraphs. Federal Defendants do not challenge to 

paragraphs 39 to 43. Paragraph 44 provides a summary of opinions and is derivative of the 

Court’s prior rulings. 

3. Declaration of Richard Deriso (Doc. No. 195). 

The Court DENIES the motion to strike as to the declaration of Richard Deriso. 

4. Declaration of Bradley Cavallo (Doc. No. 250). 

The Court DENIES the motion to strike as to paragraphs 1 through 10. There does not 

appear to be a paragraph 12 in the Cavallo declaration. The Court GRANTS the motion to strike 

as to the first listed paragraph 13, subject to an offer of proof. The Court GRANTS the motion 

to strike as to the second paragraph 13 subject to an offer of proof that it is offered as scientific 

explanation and for the lack of use of science would have been not only available, but should 

have been used. The Court GRANTS the motion to strike as to paragraphs 14 through 17. 

 

Dated: April 20,2010 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

THE HONORABLE OLIVER W. WANGER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 319 Filed 04/20/10 Page 3 of 3