JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230) 

julia@ourchildrenstrust.org

Our Children’s Trust

1216 Lincoln Street

Eugene, OR 97401

Tel: (415) 786-4825 

PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice)

pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

Gregory Law Group

1250 Godetia Drive

Redwood City, CA 94062

Tel: (650) 278-2957

ANDREA K. RODGERS (OR Bar 041029)

andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org

Our Children’s Trust

3026 NW Esplanade

Seattle, WA 98117

Tel: (206) 696-2851

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; 

XIUHTEZCATL TONATIUH M., through his 

Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-AA

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN 

AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 462)

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 464 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 8
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

1

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ 

motion for leave to amend their complaint because Plaintiffs have an impending deadline to file 

a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court if their amended complaint is not accepted 

by this Court. Any additional time constraints on that important petition are prejudicial to 

Plaintiffs. Further, the primary reason Defendants give to extend time is so that counsel can 

consult with his clients, but counsel has made clear that Defendants have already decided their 

position to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and that position will not change.

ARGUMENT

I. Legal Standard for Motion for Extension of Time

Defendants’ Motion for Extension is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b): 

“[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, 

extend the time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Under this Court’s Local Rules, LR 16-3(a), Motions to 

Change or Extend Court-Imposed Deadlines, provides:

Unless provided by LR 16-2(b), objections to any court-imposed deadline must be 

raised by motion and must:

1. Show good cause why the deadlines should be modified.

2. Show effective prior use of time.

3. Recommend a new date for the deadline in question.

4. Show the impact of the proposed extension on other existing deadlines, 

settings, or schedules.

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 464 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 8
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

2

II. Defendants Have Failed to Establish Good Cause to Extend the Time

This Motion should be denied because Defendants fail to satisfy their burden as to several 

of the requirements under the Local Rules.

1. Defendants have failed to show good cause why the March 23 deadline 

should be modified.

On March 5, immediately after the Ninth Circuit issued the mandate, counsel for 

Plaintiffs began the process of meeting and conferring via telephone about their Motion to 

Amend. Olson Dec., ¶ 2. Counsel met and conferred via telephone on March 5 and March 8 

(regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend) and again on March 11 (regarding Defendants’ Motion 

for Extension). Olson Dec., ¶¶ 2-3. On March 9, Defendants were served with a copy of 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend. Normally, Defendants’ response is due on March 23. In their 

Motion for Extension, counsel gives two reasons for requesting an extension: consultation and 

professional obligations. Neither reason satisfies the basic requirement for “good cause.”

a. Consultation: Defendants primarily ground their Motion for Extension in the 

supposed “need to consult with and solicit feedback from all of the named Defendants.” Doc. 

463 at 2, ¶ 5. However, during the March 8 meet and confer concerning Plaintiffs’ Motion to 

Amend, counsel for Defendants stated that Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ Motion. Olson Dec., 

¶ 3. Counsel for Defendants reiterated this position in the March 11 meet and confer. Id. In fact, 

on March 11, counsel for Defendants stated he would advise his clients to oppose the Motion to 

Amend and did not believe consultation will result in a change of position. Olson Dec., ¶ 3. 

Further, at no point during any meet and confer was there any qualification that counsel needed 

to review the decision to oppose the Motion to Amend with any “of the named Defendants.” 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 464 Filed 03/17/21 Page 3 of 8
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

3

Responding to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend does not require a motion to dismiss under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) nor does it require Defendants to answer every paragraph of the 

complaint. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments are limited in scope and thus 

Defendants’ concern that the complaint is over 300 paragraphs is irrelevant for purposes of 

responding to the Motion to Amend, especially when most of the paragraphs remain the same. In 

fact, under the Federal Rules, courts consider four factors when determining whether leave to 

amend should be granted: i) prejudice to the opposing party; ii) bad faith; iii) futility of 

amendment; and iv) undue delay. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Eminence 

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Not one of these factors 

requires consultation with the Defendant agencies and, unsurprisingly, Defendants do not argue 

that consultation is necessary in order to determine whether and how to oppose Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Amend. The Motion for Extension does not contain a statement by counsel that there 

is a good faith basis to assert Defendants will consider making a different decision and not 

oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend.

Defendants’ “consultation” is not “good cause” to grant an extension as counsel for 

Defendants have been quite clear: modifying the briefing deadlines to allow consultation will not 

result in a change in position. Based on their own statements, Defendants fully intend to oppose 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend.

b. Professional Obligations: Defendants have four trial attorneys working on this 

matter and other DOJ attorneys communicating with the Defendant agencies. Olson Dec., ¶¶ 4, 

6-7. Given there are four attorneys assigned to the trial court, counsel only identify two 

obligations among the four attorneys over the two-week briefing window between March 9 and 

March 23. Doc. 463 at 3, ¶ 8. Counsel does not state that the additional time requested is 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 464 Filed 03/17/21 Page 4 of 8
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

4

necessary for the four attorneys to prepare a brief in opposition to the Motion to Amend; rather

counsel needs this time for “the effort to coordinate with the Defendant agencies.” Doc. 463 at 3, 

¶ 8. As established above, that consultation effort is a red herring because Defendants have 

announced their decision to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend.

2. There is no good cause based on effective prior use of time.

Defendants completely fail to provide any information about how they have used the ten 

days from March 5 (when Defendants first learned that Plaintiffs would be moving to amend) to 

March 15 (when Defendants filed their Motion for Extension). The Motion for Extension is 

silent about “effective prior use of time.” For example, there is no evidence that counsel has even 

tried to consult with each of the Defendants, let alone that counsel have been unable to do so.

Therefore, Defendants fail to establish there has been an “effective prior use of time.”

3. Defendants fail to show the impact of the proposed extension on other 

existing deadlines, settings, or schedules.

The Motion for Extension fails to set forth any analysis about “the impact of the proposed 

extension on other existing deadlines, settings, or schedules.” For example, there is no statement 

about the prejudice Plaintiffs identified in the parties’ meet and confer session. As more fully set 

forth in the Olson Declaration, Plaintiffs are under time constraints in needing a prompt decision 

on their Motion to Amend because, should this Court deny amendment, Plaintiffs must move 

forward on their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court, due on July 12. Olson 

Dec., ¶ 5. Plaintiffs considered moving to expedite their Motion to Amend in light of that July 12 

deadline and forewent that motion in order to allow Defendants two weeks to respond, and the 

Court time to carefully review the briefing. Id. However, because there is no guarantee on when 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 464 Filed 03/17/21 Page 5 of 8
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

5

this Court will rule on the Motion to Amend, additional delay will put Plaintiffs in a difficult 

situation with the July 12 Supreme Court deadline approaching.

Further, since the new administration took office, counsel for Plaintiffs have actively 

been attempting to determine the position of Defendants on this litigation. On January 20, 2021,

counsel for Plaintiffs sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) asking for a meeting with 

the relevant decision-makers in the new administration about this case to see if their defense of 

the case and legal position on standing might change. Olson Dec., ¶ 6; see Exhibit A. Several 

days later, counsel for Plaintiffs sent a follow-up letter after President Biden signed his 

Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis, again asking for a meeting with decisionmakers and our clients to discuss the case going forward. Olson Dec., ¶ 7; see Exhibit B. Counsel 

for Plaintiffs understand these communications have been forwarded to the relevant decisionmakers. Olson Dec., ¶ 7. 

Nonetheless, Plaintiffs have been greeted with silence by this new administration, 

notwithstanding the fact that, in dozens of other climate and environmental cases in the federal 

courts, the DOJ has promptly filed papers to reverse the position of the prior administration and 

met with plaintiffs bringing those cases. Olson Dec., ¶ 8. While these Youth Plaintiffs continue 

to welcome these requested meetings and discussions, Plaintiffs are not inclined to agree to any 

further delays in this nearly six-year-old case, if the new administration gives Plaintiffs no 

indication that it will do anything differently procedurally or substantively than the position of 

the prior administration. Id.

4. Further delay will cause substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs.

As this Court is well aware, these Youth Plaintiffs are suffering increasing personal harm 

(such as the worsening heat, drought, and wildfires each year in the West while fossil fuel 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 464 Filed 03/17/21 Page 6 of 8
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

6

reliance remains at 80% of our nation’s energy system) and this two-year delay on interlocutory 

appeal has cost more time and caused more harm. The delays and departures from normal 

litigation practice imposed on these young people have been unprecedented. Plaintiffs believe 

the time for procedural delay has passed; the time for trial is now.

This Motion for Extension is another example of Defendants continually seeking to delay 

resolution of this case on the merits. Plaintiffs have been consistent throughout this litigation: 

they want to commence trial as quickly as possible. See, e.g., Doc. 119 (“Given the urgency of 

the climate crisis and in light of the well-publicized fact that the Federal Defendants are acting 

now to accelerate fossil fuel development, Plaintiffs are prepared to promptly complete 

discovery and will be ready for a court trial on November 6, 2017.”). For over five years, 

Plaintiffs have expeditiously responded to Defendants’ copious motions, petitions, applications, 

and appeals. Plaintiffs have acted with a sense of urgency throughout this case. Any undue delay 

has been and is due to Defendants’ “repeated efforts to bypass normal litigation procedures” and 

not a result of Plaintiffs’ conduct. See Judge Friedland’s dissent from granting Defendants’ 

petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) in Case No. 18-80176. Doc. 8-

2, n.1. Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if Defendants can continue to delay this case by presenting 

procedural hurdles not supported by the evidence.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, this Court should deny Defendants’ request for an additional

two weeks. Normally, Plaintiffs believe that parties and their counsel should grant reasonable 

extensions of time to each other where appropriate, and Plaintiffs have done so throughout the 

course of this case. That is not the occasion with this request. There is no evidence supporting an 

extension based on the necessary factors under the Federal Rules or the Local Rules that would 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 464 Filed 03/17/21 Page 7 of 8
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; 6:15-cv-01517-AA

7

outweigh the substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs of more delay, especially in light of the upcoming 

deadline in the Supreme Court. This Motion for Extension should be denied.

DATED this 17th day of March, 2021.

/s/ Julia A. Olson________________

JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230)

julia@ourchildrenstrust.org

Our Children’s Trust

1216 Lincoln Street

Eugene, OR 97401

Tel: (415) 786-4825

PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice)

pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com 

Gregory Law Group 

1250 Godetia Drive

Redwood City, CA 94062

Tel: (650) 278-2957

ANDREA K. RODGERS (OR Bar 041029)

andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org

Our Children’s Trust

3026 NW Esplanade

Seattle, WA 98117

Tel: (206) 696-2851

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 464 Filed 03/17/21 Page 8 of 8