JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING STAY OF BRIEFING ON REMEDY

(National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.)

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

1. On March 9, 2018, the Court entered an Order adopting, with modifications, the parties' proposed briefing schedule in this matter. ECF No. 218. The proposed briefing schedule submitted by the Parties did not address briefing on remedy.

2. On April 28, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 221), on May 11, 2018, Defendants filed their Opposition and Cross-motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 222), and on May 25, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief (ECF No. 223). Defendants' reply brief is due on June 1, 2018.

3. The parties' respective opening briefs each referenced Plaintiffs' request "to enjoin DoD from taking actions in furtherance of the FRF project until DoD remedies the flaws in its process," but neither party included in its brief substantive arguments addressing Plaintiffs' requested injunction.

4. The parties have conferred and agree that it is in the best of interest of the efficient disposition of this case for the parties to reserve further arguments on the appropriate remedy until after this Court has ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' National Historic Preservation Act claim.

5. The parties respectfully request that the Court defer consideration of Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief and that the Court order the parties to propose a separate briefing schedule on the appropriate remedy, if Plaintiffs prevail on their Motion for Summary Judgment.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.