JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 1

JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230)

juliaaolson@gmail.com

WILD EARTH ADVOCATES

1216 Lincoln Street

Eugene, OR 97401

Tel: (415) 786-4825

DANIEL M. GALPERN (OR Bar 061950)

dan.galpern@gmail.com

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL M. GALPERN

2495 Hilyard Street, Suite A Eugene, OR 

97405

Tel: (541) 968-7164

JOSEPH W. COTCHETT

jcotchett@cpmlegal.com

PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice) 

pgregory@cpmlegal.com

PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY

pmccloskey@cpmlegal.com

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP

San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 

Malcolm Road

Burlingame, CA 94010

Tel: (650) 697-6000

Fax: (650) 697-0577

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JEFFREY H. WOOD

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

LISA LYNNE RUSSELL, Chief

GUILLERMO A. MONTERO, Assistant Chief

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131)

MARISSA PIROPATO (MA Bar No. 651630)

Trial Attorneys

Natural Resources Section

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20004

(202) 305-0445 (Duffy)

(202) 305-0470 (Piropato)

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov

marissa.piropato@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

FRANK R. VOLPE (Fvolpe@sidley.com)

MARK D. HOPSON (Mhopson@sidley.com)

BENJAMIN E. TANNEN (Btannen@sidley.com)

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

1501 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

C. MARIE ECKERT (OR Bar 883490) 

marie.eckert@millernash.com

SUZANNE C. LACAMPAGNE (OR Bar 951705)

suzanne.lacampagne@millernash.com

MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP

3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue 

Tel: (503) 224-5858

Fax: (503) 224-0155

Attorneys for Intervenor Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Federal Defendants.

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

JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF 

JUNE 12, 2017

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 1 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 2

The parties have met and conferred and hereby respectfully provide this joint

status report to inform the court of the status of discovery and other pending or upcoming

motions.

I. Intervenors’ Motions to Withdraw

All three Intervenor Defendants have filed motions to withdraw from the case. 

Plaintiffs have filed their response briefs to the three motions to withdraw.

Plaintiffs’ Position

Plaintiffs do not oppose the motions to withdraw but are requesting that such 

withdrawal only be granted with conditions. Plaintiffs have requested this Court order 

that: (1) Intervenor Defendants’ withdrawal be with prejudice, finding that Intervenor 

Defendants no longer meet the requirements of FRCP 24; (2) Intervenor Defendants pay 

attorneys’ fees and costs attributed to Intervenor Defendants’ participation in the case;

(3) the legal determinations in the case have a stare decisis effect on Intervenor 

Defendants’ interest or available remedies in other litigation; (4) Intervenor Defendants and

each of their members are precluded from participating in this case as a party and any

future participation is limited to amicus curiae participation, if at all; and (5) all of 

Intervenor Defendants’ pending motions and objections in the case are dismissed. If the

Court decides not to grant the Intervenor Defendants’ motions to withdraw, Plaintiffs 

request that Intervenor Defendants be required to provide full and complete responses to all

outstanding discovery requests within 5 days of the Court’s order denying the motions to

withdraw.

Intervenor Defendants’ Position

Plaintiffs have clearly indicated, in pleadings and in the media that they do not oppose

Intervenors’ motions to withdraw. The conditions Plaintiffs seek to impose on withdrawal

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 2 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 3

have no legal or factual bases. Intervenors will respond more fully in their Reply briefs in

support of the motions to withdraw. With regard to the discussions about discovery, in light of

the pending motions to withdraw, Intervenors do not currently have a view regarding the issues

raised herein.

Federal Defendants’ Position

Federal Defendants do not oppose the intervenors’ motion to withdraw.

II. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission to Federal Defendants

Plaintiffs’ Position

Four months after they were served with Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, 

Federal Defendants have only objected to Plaintiffs’ ten Requests for Admission to 

Defendants the Executive Office of the President and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Federal Defendants did not answer any of the ten requests, and instead served joint

objections that do not distinguish the different grounds for objections between the

Executive Office of the President and the Environmental Protection Agency, including 

assertions of executive privilege. Plaintiffs met and conferred with Federal Defendants on 

June 9 requesting that they distinguish the grounds for objections for each defendant in 

order to inform Plaintiffs’ decision to move to compel responses. Despite this Court’s 

statements at the Status Conferences and this Court’s denials of the various motions to 

stay, Federal Defendants have yet to provide a substantive response to any discovery, 

have yet to schedule a single witness for deposition, and have yet to produce a single

document. Their “game” is clearly to delay the discovery process for as long as possible. 

Plaintiffs’ position is that, absent an order of this Court, Federal Defendants will continue to

take the position that they do not have to provide substantive responses or produce any 

documents. Rather than burden this Court with numerous motions to compel and for 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 3 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 4

sanctions, Plaintiffs request that the parties and this Court use the June 14 Status 

Conference to review the outstanding discovery and the discovery responses to date and 

develop a firm schedule for substantive discovery responses, depositions, and production of

documents.

Federal Defendants’ Position

Federal Defendants continue to oppose discovery at this stage of the litigation for the 

reasons set forth in the objections to the Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 149) and 

motion to stay the litigation (ECF No. 151). Nonetheless, Federal Defendants filed responses 

to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Admission on May 31. Those responses address the 

only RFAs that have been propounded on Federal Defendants. The responses object to the 

Requests for Admission on a number of bases and on these bases deny each request. If 

Plaintiffs dispute the objections, the next step is for the parties to meet and confer.

III. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents on Federal Defendants

Plaintiffs’ Position

Federal Defendants have not formally served objections to any of Plaintiffs’ requests 

for production of documents, but have conferred with Plaintiffs regarding their concerns about 

the scope of the requests and possible claims of deliberative process and/or executive 

privilege. In the interest of moving our discovery disputes forward to a quick resolution, 

Plaintiffs have in good faith substantially narrowed their request for production of documents 

to The Executive Office of the President and President Donald Trump, The United States 

Department of State, The United States Department of Agriculture, and The United States 

Department of Defense. Plaintiffs believe the revised requests for production of documents 

are sufficiently narrow and will lead to important evidence relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.

Plaintiffs have not received any updates from Federal Defendants since the May 4, 2017 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 4 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 5

in person meet and confer regarding the status of the two outstanding Request for Production 

of Documents seeking documents located at National Archives and Records Administration 

(“NARA”). Since March, Federal Defendants have represented to Plaintiffs that said records 

are undergoing a declassification process, but may be subject to executive privilege. In the 

April 3, 2017 Joint Status Report, Federal Defendants committed to “update Plaintiffs on a 

rolling basis as the status of the documents are determined and, where applicable, the 

production timeline is available.” ECF 131, p. 10. However, Plaintiffs have received no 

updates on the status of the processing of the documents, their production timeline, or whether 

a determination has been made on whether the President intends to attempt to exercise 

executive privilege for all or any specific documents since the May 4 meet and confer. In an 

attempt to speed up the process, Plaintiffs have even offered to go to the libraries to review the 

records. If Federal Defendants do not provide Plaintiffs with an update on the NARA RFPs 

and a reasonable timeframe by which they will either produce the documents or file written 

objections Plaintiffs will move to compel the production of the documents before the end of 

June.

Further, Federal Defendants have ignored Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for 

Production of Documents to Federal Defendants and have not served written objections, 

sought further extension, or produced any documents. As a result of their failure to timely 

respond, Federal Defendants have waived all objections, including any objections as to 

privilege. Plaintiffs will move to compel production of those documents before the end of 

June.

Despite this Court’s statements at the Status Conferences and this Court’s denials of the 

various motions to stay, Federal Defendants have yet to provide a substantive response to any 

discovery, have yet to schedule a single witness for deposition, and have yet to produce a

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 5 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 6

single document. Rather than burden this Court with numerous motions to compel and for

sanctions, Plaintiffs request that the parties and this Court use the June 14 Status Conference

to review the outstanding discovery and the discovery responses to date and develop a firm

schedule for substantive discovery responses, depositions, and production of documents.

Federal Defendants’ Position

A. Requests for Production on the Executive Office of the President

On May 19, Plaintiffs filed revised requests for production of documents on the 

Executive Office of the President that supplant the previously propounded request for 

production on the Executive Office. The revised requests do not narrow the overbroad 

definitions, nor do they “substantially narrow” the requests. The requests are objectionable 

because they seek information that is subject to the executive privilege. In addition, the revised 

requests, like the initial requests that they supplant, are burdensome, overbroad, and are not 

proportional to the needs of the case. The time in which to respond to the requests has not yet 

lapsed.

B. Requests for Production on the Departments of State, Defense, and Agriculture

On May 19, Plaintiff filed revised requests for production separately on the 

Departments of State, Defense, and Agriculture that supplant the previously propounded 

request for production on each of these agencies. The time in which to respond to these revised 

requests has not yet lapsed. The revised requests that were propounded do not narrow the 

overbroad definitions, nor do they “substantially narrow” the requests. Instead, the revised 

requests, like the initial requests they supplant, are objectionable because they are burdensome, 

overbroad, and are not proportional to the needs of the case. Nonetheless, with respect to each 

agency, Federal Defendants are exploring the extent which they can commence production of 

certain non-privileged, responsive material on a rolling basis. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 6 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 7

C. Requests Seeking Emails from Rex Tillerson while he was an employee of Exxon 

Mobil.

On March 17, Plaintiffs propounded their Third Set of Requests for Production. These 

requests seek any communications any Federal Defendant had with Secretary of State Rex 

Tillerson through a pseudonym or alias “Wayne Tracker” on the subject of climate change or 

energy policy. This request was discussed during the parties’ in-person meet and confer on 

May 4 and again during a telephonic meet and confer on June 9. Federal Defendants informed 

Plaintiffs that they will object to this request on the grounds, among others, that it is not 

designed to produce any admissible evidence on any claim or defense in this case, is overbroad, 

unduly burdensome, is not proportional to the needs of the case, and seeks information that is 

more readily available from other sources. During the June 9 meet and confer, Plaintiffs 

indicated that they disagree, but committed to provide a letter explaining the probative value of 

these requests. Federal Defendants await that letter.

D. Document Requests Pertaining to Documents Held in Presidential Libraries and the 

National Archives and Records Administration.

On February 21 and March 7, Plaintiffs propounded discovery requests on Federal 

Defendants seeking presidential records housed in presidential libraries and EPA records 

housed in facilities operated by the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). 

Through discussions with NARA, Federal Defendants have learned that the records sought, 

insofar as they pertain to the George W. Bush administration, cannot be obtained because the 

Presidential Records Act exempts such records from disclosure until 12 years after the 

conclusion of an administration. 44 U.S.C. § 2204. 

In addition, with respect to records sought by Plaintiffs of administrations that preceded 

the George W. Bush administration (i.e. records of the Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, George 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 7 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 8

H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations), Federal Defendants have conferred with NARA, 

which has confirmed that some of the documents sought are designated as classified and will 

be withheld on that basis. With respect to non-classified documents, Plaintiffs may visit the 

relevant records facilities and review non-classified records after an appropriate protective

order that accounts for, among other things, the non-disclosure of the personally identifiable 

information of individuals is in place. Federal Defendants are preparing a proposed draft 

protective order for the Plaintiffs to review.

IV. Depositions

Plaintiffs’ Position

Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of two federal government employees: C. Mark 

Eakin, Coordinator of National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef 

Watch program, Satellite Oceanography & Climatology Division; and Michael

Kuperberg, Executive Director, United States Global Change Research Program. Those

depositions are noticed for June 14 and 15, respectively. To date, Federal Defendants 

have not formally responded to these notices. During the course of the June 9 meet and

confer, Federal Defendants stated the witnesses would not be produced on the dates 

noticed and they are attempting to provide available dates in July for the depositions.

After multiple meet and confers, on June 12, 2017, Plaintiffs noticed the FRCP 

30(b)(6) depositions to the following defendant agencies: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, 

Department of Energy, Department of Interior, Department of Transportation, and the

Environmental Protection Agency.

Federal Defendants’ Position

Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of two federal government employees: C. Mark Eakin, 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 8 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 9

Coordinator of National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef Watch program, 

Satellite Oceanography & Climatology Division; and Michael Kuperberg, Executive Director, 

United States Global Change Research Program. Plaintiffs noticed the depositions for June 14 

and June 15 respectively, both to be held in Washington, D.C., where these witnesses are 

located. Neither of the two deponents is available on those dates. These dates also conflict 

with the in-person status conference in Eugene, Oregon. The parties are exploring mutuallyagreeable dates for these depositions. 

Federal Defendants have yet to receive any deposition notices pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 30(b)(6).

V. Stipulation Regarding Discovery Procedure

Plaintiffs’ Position

In their Status Reports of January 31, 2017 (ECF 110), March 7, 2017 (ECF 119), 

and April 3, 2017 (ECF 131), Plaintiffs proposed a Stipulation concerning Electronically 

Stored Information (“ESI”). To date, Federal Defendants have not responded with any 

comments. On June 8, 2017, Federal Defendants circulated a draft order and stipulation on

discovery as well as an appendix that accompanies that document. At the June 14 Joint

Status Conference, Plaintiffs are prepared to negotiate and enter into both their 

Stipulation concerning ESI and Federal Defendants’ order and stipulation on discovery.

Federal Defendants’ Position

Federal Defendants provided Plaintiffs with a proposed order and stipulation governing 

discovery in this case, with provisions pertaining to the handling of electronically stored

information, and taking account of unique laws that apply to federal government. The parties 

need to negotiate the relevant terms of a proposed order and stipulation. Federal Defendants 

await Plaintiffs response to the proposed order and stipulation that has been provided.

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 9 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 10

VI. Experts

Plaintiffs’ Position

Plaintiffs are actively working with experts to prepare their expert reports and the

reports are currently being drafted by the experts. While Plaintiffs anticipate being able to

serve the majority of their expert reports by July 1, as directed by the Court, due to the travel

schedules and other issues of certain experts, it is likely that all of Plaintiffs’ expert

reports will not be finalized by July 1. Plaintiffs will disclose expert reports that are

completed on July 1 and will propose a new deadline for certain expert reports during the

June 14 Joint Status Conference.

Plaintiffs will be substituting previously disclosed sequestration expert Keith Paustian 

with Phil Robertson, University Distinguished Professor of Ecosystem Science at Michigan

State University. While Keith Paustian agreed to be an expert for Plaintiffs, he also serves

on a National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) committee, and NAS lawyers would not

allow him to be an expert in this case while he serves on the committee, despite his

efforts to obtain their permission. Plaintiffs also intend to disclose up to three additional

experts.

Federal Defendants’ Position

At the Court’s May 18 status conference, the Court asked Plaintiffs to provide expert 

reports for their 11 anticipated experts by July 1 and for Federal Defendants to provide expert 

disclosures 45 days after the reports are filed. Both parties indicated they would endeavor to 

do so. Federal Defendants have continued to meet with potential candidates and will endeavor 

to meet the Court’s suggested 45-day timeframe, but remain cognizant that identification of 

specific experts are difficult until Federal Defendants can fully digest the opinions offered by 

Plaintiffs’ experts, share those opinions with potential expert candidates, and determine which 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 10 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 11

potential experts are appropriate to support Federal Defendants’ defense. 

The identity and subject matter of the testimony of any additional expert witness whom 

Plaintiffs intend to call should be promptly identified.

VII. Trial Schedule

Plaintiffs’ Position

Given Plaintiffs’ concerns about the urgency of addressing climate change and 

redressing their injuries, Plaintiffs continue to prepare for a late 2017 trial date.

Federal Defendants’ Position

Federal Defendants believe that this matter should be stayed and, if no stay is granted, 

that a trial schedule should not be set until this Court resolves some of the present discovery 

disputes and the scope of the issues to be decided at trial. Federal Defendants believe that a 

late 2017 trial date is entirely unrealistic given the extraordinary scope of the case and the 

discovery that Plaintiffs have propounded, which will assuredly take much longer to respond 

to.

VIII. Plaintiffs’ Protective Order

Plaintiffs’ Position

Plaintiffs are drafting a proposed protective order and will circulate to Federal

Defendants before the June 14 meet and confer.

Federal Defendants’ Position

Federal Defendants have yet to receive a proposed protective order.

IX. Status of Discovery Propounded to Date

To date, Plaintiffs have propounded the following discovery:

DATE

PROPOUND

ED

PLAINTIFFS’

POSITION 

ON 

RESPONSES

DUE DATE

FEDERAL 

DEFENDANTS

POSITION ON 

RESPONSES

DUE DATE

PARTY OR

PARTIES

TITLE STATUS

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 11 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 12

12/28/2017 API Plaintiffs’ Notice of 

Deposition of Rex Tillerson

To be re-noticed

1/20/2017 Responses 

served on May 

31

Responses 

served on May 

31

EOP, EPA First Set of Requests for

Admission to Defendants

Executive Office of the

President and the

Environmental Protection

Agency

Responses filed

2/17/2017 3/23/2017 3/23/2017 API Request for Production of

Documents to American

Petroleum Institute

Objections filed. 

Narrowed and 

re-served

2/21/2017 6/5/2017 Deadlines tolled 

pending meet 

and confer

All 

Federal

Defendant

s

Requests for Production of

Documents to Federal

Defendants (documents from

Presidential Libraries)

Parties 

negotiating 

protective order 

3/7/2017 6/5/2017 Deadlines tolled 

pending meet 

and confer

All 

Federal

Defendant

s

Second Set of Requests for

Production of Documents to

Federal Defendants

(documents from Presidential

Libraries)

Parties 

negotiating 

protective order

3/17/2017 4/16/2017 4/16/2017 API Third Set of Requests for

Production of Documents to

American Petroleum Institute 

(re: “Wayne Tracker” emails)

Not answered; 

motions to 

withdraw 

pending

3/17/2017 6/5/2017 Deadlines tolled 

pending meet 

and confer

All 

Federal

Defendant

s

Third Set of Requests for

Production of Documents to

Federal Defendants (re:

“Wayne Tracker” emails)

Meet and confer. 

Plaintiffs to 

provide letter 

response to 

Federal Defs.

3/24/2017 5/25/17 5/25/17 All Intervenor 

Defendants

Request for Admission to 

Intervenor Defendants

Objections filed. 

Narrowed and 

re-served

5/11/2017 6/14/2017 6/14/2017 Federal 

Defendants

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition 

to C. Mark Eakin

Parties met and 

conferred June 9

5/11/2017 6/15/2017 6/15/2017 Federal 

Defendants

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition 

to Mark Kuperberg

Parties met and 

conferred June 9

5/19/2017 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 API Revised Request for Production

of Documents to American

Petroleum Institute

5/19/2017 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 All Intervenor 

Defendants

Revised Request for Production

of Documents

5/19/2017 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 USDA Revised Request for Production 

of Documents to Defendant 

United States Department of 

Agriculture

5/19/2017 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 DOD Revised Request for Production 

of Documents to Defendant 

United States Department of 

Defense

5/19/2017 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 State Revised Request for Production 

of Documents to Defendant 

United States Department of 

State

5/19/2017 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 EOP, DT Revised Request for Production 

of Documents to Defendants the 

Executive Office of the 

President and President Donald 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 12 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 13

Trump

6/12/2017 EPA Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notice of 

Deposition to Defendant United 

States Environmental Protection 

Agency

6/12/2017 DOI Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notice of 

Deposition to Defendant United 

States Department of Interior

6/12/2017 State Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notice of 

Deposition to Defendant United 

States Department of State

6/12/2017 Commerce Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notice of 

Deposition to Defendant United 

States Department of 

Commerce

6/12/2017 DOT Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notice of 

Deposition to Defendant United 

States Department of 

Transportation

6/12/2017 DOD Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notice of 

Deposition to Defendant United 

States Department of Defense

6/12/2017 DOE Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notice of 

Deposition to Defendant United 

States Department of Energy

6/12/2017 USDA Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notice of 

Deposition to Defendant United 

States Department of 

Agriculture

Dated: June 12, 2017 By: _ /s/Julia A. Olson

JULIA A. OLSON

JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230)

1216 Lincoln Street

Eugene, OR 97401

Tel: (415) 786-4825

DANIEL M. GALPERN (OR Bar 061950)

2495 Hilyard Street, Suite A

Eugene, OR 97405

Tel: (541) 968-7164

PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice)

840 Malcolm Road

Burlingame, CA 94010

Tel: (650) 697-6000

Fax: (650) 697-0577

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 13 of 15
JOINT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 12, 2017 14

Dated: June 12, 2017 By: /s/ Sean C. Duffy

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar 4103131)

MARISSA A. PIROPATO

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20004

Tel: (202) 305-0445

Fax: (202) 305-0506

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 14 of 15
15

Dated: June 12, 2017 By: _ /s/C. Marie Eckert

C. MARIE ECKERT

C. MARIE ECKERT (OR Bar 883490)

SUZANNE C. LACAMPAGNE (OR Bar

951705) 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue

Tel: (503) 224-5858

Fax: (503) 224-0155

MARK D. HOPSON (pro hac vice)

FRANK R. VOLPE (pro hac vice)

BENJAMIN E. TANNEN (pro hac vice)

1501 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Tel: (202) 736-8000

Fax: (202) 736-8711

Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendants

ATTESTATION OF FILING

I, Julia A. Olson, hereby attest, pursuant to District of Oregon, Local Rule 11(d),

that consent to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.

/s/ Julia A. Olson

JULIA A. OLSON

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 178 Filed 06/12/17 Page 15 of 15