MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

In an earlier-filed order, the Court resolved a motion to consolidate this case with a case being heard by Magistrate Bush. In resolving that motion, the Court and the Government interpreted the plaintiffs' brief as consenting to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge Bush. Finding that the transfer of this case to Judge Bush would take care of any concerns the plaintiffs raised, the Court denied the motion to consolidate and transferred the case to Judge Bush.

The plaintiffs have since informed the Court that its interpretation of their briefing was incorrect, and that they do not consent to the Magistrate's jurisdiction. While plaintiffs' briefing was somewhat ambiguous, their position that their language did not constitute a consent is not entirely unreasonable. The Court will therefore assume that they do not consent to the Magistrate's jurisdiction. This in turn requires that the Court reconsider its prior decision, and that reconsideration is set forth below.

ANALYSIS

In their motion to consolidate, plaintiffs asked the Court to consolidate this case with WildEarth Guardians v. Kraayenbrink, No. 4:14-CV-488-REB, a case currently with Magistrate Judge Bush. In WildEarth, the plaintiffs challenged the BLM's approval of a "Predator Derby" on BLM land in Eastern Idaho. The Derby is a multi-day contest, sponsored by a private organization, to shoot and kill gray wolves and other animals for cash and prizes.

Shortly after that case was filed, the BLM withdrew its approval of the Derby. The plaintiffs made a FOIA request for BLM documents regarding the withdrawal, and when the BLM failed to answer that request, the plaintiffs filed this case seeking to enforce their FOIA request.

Plaintiffs now seek to consolidate their substantive challenge to the BLM's approval (WildEarth) with their challenge to the BLM's refusal to provide documents under FOIA (this case). Rule 42(a) authorizes the consolidation of cases that share "a common question of law or fact." The Court has broad discretion to order consolidation, U.S. v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir.1989), and in exercising that discretion should "weigh[] the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay or expenses that it would cause." Huene v. U.S., 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir.1984).

Plaintiffs argue that the two cases are intertwined because they filed the FOIA request to answer factual and legal questions about the Predator Derby raised in the WildEarth case. The plaintiffs argue that the "entire rationale for filing [their] FOIA request is to determine whether or not [their] claims in the [WildEarth] Derby Case remain live." See Reply Brief (Dkt. No. 16).

But the only question in the FOIA case is whether the BLM responded properly to plaintiffs' FOIA request. That question is not common to Wildlife, a case that involves entirely separate issues. Moreover, there is an appearance of forum-shopping when the party seeking consolidation will not agree to consolidation and transfer to the other judge. While the Court does not believe there is actual forum-shopping here, even the appearance of forum-shopping must be avoided. Consequently, the Court will reconsider its earlier decision, withdraw the transfer to the Magistrate Judge, and deny the motion to consolidate.

ORDER

In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Order (docket no. 22) be amended as follows: The transfer of this case to Magistrate Judge Bush is WITHDRAWN due to a lack of complete consent by the parties, and this case is hereby TRANSFERRED TO THIS COURT. The Clerk take the necessary steps to change the case number designation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that motion to consolidate (docket no. 10) is DENIED.