JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND STIPULATION

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

The Parties hereby update the Court on their discussions regarding the administrative record and jointly propose and stipulate to the following schedule for further proceedings in this case:

Current Procedural Posture

Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the First Claim for Relief on November 12, 2013, and the motion has been fully briefed since December 10, 2013.1 See ECF No. 41. A hearing on the motion was originally scheduled for January 21, 2014 but was removed from the calendar. On May 30, 2014, the Parties jointly filed a notice pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-13, as Defendants' motion has been under submission for more than 120 days.

While Defendants' motion to dismiss has been pending, the Parties have been conferring in an attempt to resolve any disputes regarding the administrative record. On December 19, 2013, Defendants filed and produced the administrative record and privilege log. Plaintiffs raised several questions and concerns regarding the sufficiency of the record and log, and, in response, Defendants agreed to supplement and revise the record, indices, and log. In their February 24, 2014 Case Management Report, the Parties agreed that Defendants would provide a revised privilege log by February 28, 2014 and would supplement the record, as appropriate, by March 27, 2014. See ECF No. 50. However, the Court continued the March 5, 2014 and May 7, 2014 Telephonic Case Management Conferences and did not enter a scheduling order. Defendants provided Plaintiffs with revised administrative record indices and a revised privilege log by February 28, 2014, and with supplemental and revised administrative record documents over the past several months. Defendants filed a revised and amended administrative record with the Court on May 29, 2014.

Proposed Schedule for Further Proceedings

The Parties believe this case can be resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment based upon the administrative record.2 While Plaintiffs do not concede that the scope of the record, including all redactions and exclusions, is legally sufficient or would be appropriate in other circumstances, the Parties have nevertheless agreed that summary judgment briefing can and should proceed as soon as the Court resolves Defendants' pending motion to dismiss.

Additionally, the Parties recognize that the administrative record contains many very lengthy documents. Defendants' revised and amended administrative record contains nearly 50,000 pages. At the November 13, 2013 case management conference, the Court had requested a courtesy hard copy of the administrative record. Given the on-going discussions regarding the adequacy of the record, and the revisions and amendments thereto, Defendants have not yet provided that courtesy copy. Such a hard copy, however, would fill nearly 50 four-inch binders. Rather than burden the Court with that much paper, the Parties have agreed and propose that, at the close of summary judgment briefing, Defendants will provide the Court with a hard-copy appendix containing those portions of the administrative record to which the Parties cite in briefing.

Based upon the foregoing, the Parties hereby propose and stipulate to the following schedule: