Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-36/pdf.json

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

---

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE ADMISSION OF EXTRA-RECORD TESTIMONY OF MWD’S EXPERT WITNESSES

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1053-OWW-DLB

sf-2876176

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE CONSOLIDATED SALMON CASES: LEAD CASE NO:

1:09-cv-1053-OWW-DLB

Consolidated With:

1:09-cv-1090-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1378-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1520-OWW-SMS

1:09-cv-1580-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1624-OWW-SMS

ORDER RE ADMISSION OF EXTRARECORD TESTIMONY OF 

METROPOLITAN WATER 

DISTRICT’S EXPERT WITNESSES

Judge: Oliver W. Wanger

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY, et al. v. LOCKE, et al.

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT v. 

NOAA, et al.

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

LOCKE, et al.

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al. v. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al.

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al.

THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 

OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES 

SERVICE, et al.

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 462 Filed 08/13/10 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

27

28

ORDER RE ADMISSION OF EXTRA-RECORD TESTIMONY OF MWD’S EXPERT WITNESSES

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1053-OWW-DLB 1

sf-2876176

ORDER

On July 19 and 20, 2010, the Court heard a motion by Plaintiff Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California (“MWD”), amongst others, to submit extra-record expert witness 

testimony in support of plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 386.) 

The Court has fully considered the briefs, evidence, and oral argument submitted by 

MWD and good cause appearing therefore, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS:

MWD’s request to submit the testimony of Dr. Kenneth P. Burnham, Dr. Richard B. 

Deriso, and Dr. Daniel E. Schindler, as described in the motion, is GRANTED to the extent the 

filed declarations are determined to meet the legal standards for admissibility and without 

prejudice to further objections and motions to strike based on the content of the respective 

experts’ declarations. MWD is to avoid unnecessary duplication and ensure coordination with the 

other plaintiff experts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 462 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2