Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-02006/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-02006-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF

FISHERMAN'S ASSOCIATIONS, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

YUROK TRIBE, et al.,

Intervenors,

 v.

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION, et. al.,

Defendants,

and

KLAMATH WATER USERS

ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant-Intervenors.

_________________________________

No. C 02-2006 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 442]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply in

Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunction Following Remand ("Motion to File a Sur-Reply") [Docket

No. 442]. Plaintiffs' Motion to File a Sur-Reply is opposed by defendants U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

and National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively referred to herein as the "Federal Defendants")

[Docket No. 446]. In Plaintiffs' Motion to File Sur-Reply, Plaintiffs request leave to file a short, threepage sur-reply to the Federal Defendants' March 1, 2006 reply brief in order to ensure that the issues

associated with Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunction are as clear as possible. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs'

request on the grounds that a sur-reply is unnecessary and unwarranted since Defendants did not raise

any "new" arguments in their reply brief. Defendants concede, however, that the decision to allow

Case 4:02-cv-02006-SBA Document 446 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

supplemental briefing is within the Court's discretion.

Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in the papers submitted to

the Court, and given the importance of the issues before the Court, and the Ninth Circuit's mandate, the

Court finds that it would benefit from consideration of Plaintiffs' proposed sur-reply. Plaintiffs'

proposed sur-reply is short and concise and is intended only to provide further clarity with regard to the

issues before the Court. However, the Court also agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs' arguments

concerning chinook salmon are irrelevant. As such, although the Court will consider the proposed surreply, it will disregard the following sections of the sur-reply: (1) page 2, lines 15 through 28; (2) page

3, lines 1 through 6; (3) Exhibit 1; and (4) Exhibit 2. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply in

Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunction Following Remand [Docket No. 442] is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs' sur-reply, which is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply

in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunction Following Remand [Docket No. 442] shall be deemed

filed as of the date of this Order. However, the Court will disregard the following sections of the surreply: (1) page 2, lines 15 through 28; (2) page 3, lines 1 through 6; (3) Exhibit 1; and (4) Exhibit 2.

The Court now considers this matter fully submitted on the papers. None of the parties may file any

further briefing with respect to Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction without first seeking leave of Court and

demonstrating the existence of good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________ Dated: 3/16/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-02006-SBA Document 446 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2