STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Court entered the Parties' previous stipulation partially modifying the Court's Further Scheduling Order (Dkt. 1027) on March 21, 2017 (Dkt. 1073);

WHEREAS, that stipulation revised the schedule for responsive pleadings and administrative records, but did not change the remainder of the schedule;

WHEREAS, the Parties indicated that they would continue to meet and confer regarding "(i) the propriety, need for, or scope of discovery as to the claims against the Federal Defendants; (ii) discovery schedules; (iii) a briefing schedule; or (iv) pre-trial and trial scheduling" (Dkt. 1073);

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that Plaintiffs' Second and Fourth Claims will be resolved based on the administrative record, and, therefore, discovery is not appropriate as to those claims;

WHEREAS, Federal Defendants submit that Plaintiffs' Sixth Claim against Federal Defendants, as narrowed by this Court's February 23, 2017 Order (Dkt. 1069), can also be resolved on the administrative record, but Plaintiffs submit that the need for discovery on the Sixth Claim against Federal Defendants should be assessed after the administrative record is filed;

WHEREAS, the Parties accordingly continue to agree that the need for and scope of discovery for the Sixth Claim against Federal Defendants should be addressed after the administrative record is filed (Dkt. 1073 at 2);

WHEREAS, the Parties have now agreed on a revised schedule for all other discovery, briefing, pre-trial, and trial dates;

WHEREAS, during the meet and confer Federal Defendants requested that Plaintiffs abstain from propounding discovery as to Plaintiffs' Sixth Claim against the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors ("SRS Contractors"), other than requests for production, on Federal Defendants until after the Court had resolved any motion to limit review of the Sixth Claim as against Federal Defendants to the administrative record, or until the parties filed a stipulation to the same effect;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs disagreed with Federal Defendants' proposal;

WHEREAS, in an effort to finalize the proposed discovery schedule, Federal Defendants agreed to withdraw their request but do not waive any rights, objections, or responses that Federal Defendants may have to Plaintiffs' propounded discovery;

AND WHEREAS, the Parties' agreed schedule seeks to balance the Parties' need for adequate preparation time with the goal of resolving this case expeditiously and the Court's previously expressed preference against bifurcation (Doc. 1027 at 3);

STIPULATION

NOW THEREFORE, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby stipulate to the following schedule regarding discovery, briefing, and trial deadlines. The Parties agree that the proposed discovery schedule does not waive any rights, objections, or responses that Federal Defendants may have to discovery propounded against the Federal Defendants as to Plaintiffs' Sixth Claim against the SRS Contractors. For the Court's reference, the schedule set forth below incorporates and italicizes the dates previously entered by the Court in response to the Parties' prior stipulation (Dkt. 1073).

ORDER

Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation, the Court hereby ORDERS that the following schedule for further proceedings in this case is established.

IT IS SO ORDERED.