Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BASEL ACTION NETWORK v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 3:11-cv-06185-EMC. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140123c41 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2014
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION CONTINUING THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, Defendant United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. EPA, in her official capacity (collectively "Defendants"), and the Basel Action Network ("BAN"), Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity (collectively "Plaintiffs"), hereby stipulate to and request an ord
More

JOINT STIPULATION CONTINUING THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, Defendant United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. EPA, in her official capacity (collectively "Defendants"), and the Basel Action Network ("BAN"), Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity (collectively "Plaintiffs"), hereby stipulate to and request an order continuing the Case Management Conference ("CMC") currently set for February 4, 2014 (Dkt. No. 62) to February 11, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. The Court previously stayed all proceedings, in part, to allow EPA to act on the portion of Plaintiffs' petition requesting that EPA take certain actions under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act ("MPRSA") (Dkt. No. 61). The stay expired on December 31, 2013. EPA has not yet taken action on the MPRSA portion of Plaintiffs' petition. EPA reasonably expects to act by January 29, 2014. The parties agree that until Plaintiffs consider EPA's response to the MPRSA portion of the petition, they cannot effectively meet and confer on how to proceed with the pending case. Accordingly, the parties request that the CMC be continued until February 25, 2014, the next available CMC date that counsel for both parties is available, and that the case management statement be due on February 18, 2014.

Lead counsel for EPA is located in Washington, D.C., and, due to current government budgetary restrictions, has not received approval to travel to San Francisco for the CMC. No local Department of Justice attorneys are assigned to this matter and no other Department of Justice attorneys have worked on this matter in any capacity. Lead counsel for Plaintiffs is located in Seattle, WA and does not object to this request so long as both parties appear telephonically.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the parties request that they both be allowed to appear and participate telephonically at the February 25, 2014 initial CMC.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to Stipulation, the case management conference is continued until February 27, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. The case management statement shall be due February 20, 2014.

Further, before the Court is the parties' Joint Request to Appear Telephonically on February 27, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. Upon due consideration, and for good cause shown, the parties' request is hereby GRANTED. It is further ordered that

— counsel will call the following number to participate in the hearing: ____________________________

X Plaintiffs' counsel will be called at (206) 343-7340 ext. 1020 and Defendants' counsel will be called at (202) 514-0375 to participate in the hearing. Counsel will be available from 9:00 am until the call occurs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer