ORDER

WILLIAM P. LYNCH, Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Joint Motion of United States and Pueblos of Jemez, Zia, and Santa Ana Requesting Court to Permit the Parties to Engage in Fact-Finding and Related Discovery Prior to Submitting Briefs on Critical Threshold Issues; Response to Order of May 4, 2012. (Doc. No. 4246, filed May 25, 2012). For the reasons stated below, the Motion will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The United States, the State of New Mexico ("State"), the Jemez River Basin Water Users Coalition ("Coalition") and the Pueblos of Jemez, Santa Ana, and Zia ("Pueblos") requested that the Court rule on certain legal issues before proceeding with the adjudication of the Pueblos' water rights claims. (See Doc. No. 4244, filed May 4, 2012). Those legal issues are:

(Motion at 2-3).

The United States and the Pueblos filed a proposed litigation plan that included one year to complete fact development and discovery/depositions before beginning a 300-day briefing schedule. (See Doc. No. 4237, filed April 13, 2012). The State and the Coalition also filed a proposed litigation plan with a 300-day briefing schedule to begin shortly after the Court's action on the proposed litigation plans with the Court determining the need for any fact development and discovery after reviewing the briefs. (See Doc. No. 4239, filed April 13, 2012).

The Court held telephonic status conference on May 3, 2012, to discuss the length of the briefing schedule and the need for additional fact development. (See Doc. No. 4242, filed April 26, 2012). During the status conference the parties indicated that the 300-day briefing schedule resulted from briefing the issues in two stages and that the briefing schedule could be reduced to 150 days if they briefed all five issues simultaneously. The Court ordered the United States and the Pueblos to file a motion requesting time for additional fact development along with an affidavit containing information to help the Court determine whether the time requested for additional fact development is justified or instead will result in undue delay. (See Doc. No. 2444, filed May 4, 2012).

The United States and the Pueblos' Motion seeks "four months to engage in factual development and three months thereafter to engage in discovery (i.e. depose any experts who have issued any reports) before briefs are submitted to the Court." (Motion at 12). The time requested is based on an estimate of an expert "in Spanish and Mexican law to locate pertinent documentation and prepare a report" regarding Issue No. 1. (Motion at 9). The United States and the Pueblos state that Issue No. 4 regarding Winters reserved rights will require some fact development regarding Congressional intent but believe that such factual information "can be acquired relatively soon (within a few months) and therefore should not warrant a delay in the briefing schedule." (Motion at 3, 11). The United States and the Pueblos state that Issue No. 3 and Issue No. 5 can be briefed without further fact development. (See Motion at 11).

The State and the Coalition oppose the United States and the Pueblos' Motion. (See Coalition's Response, Doc. No. 4248, filed June 8, 2012; State's Response, Doc. No. 4249, filed June 11, 2012). The State and the Coalition argue that the United States and the Pueblos have "`had their day in court' with respect to Spanish and Mexican law" and that allowing additional fact development would result in undue delay.

The United States and the Pueblos' Motion appears to request a seven-month fact development/discovery period before any briefs are filed. Adding the 150-day briefing period to the end of the fact development/discovery period, which appears to be directed primarily at Issue No. 1, would result in briefing being completed one year after granting the Motion. To the extent that the United States and the Pueblos seek a seven-month fact development/discovery period before any briefs are filed, the Motion is denied.

The parties have not presented any reasons why briefing of issues that need no fact development cannot begin immediately. The Court will allow the United States and the Pueblos to develop facts concurrently with briefing of those issues that need little or no fact development.

Opening briefs on Issue No. 5 regarding riparian rights are due within 30 days of entry of this Order. Responses are due 15 days after the deadline for the opening briefs. Replies are due 15 days after the deadline for responses.

Opening briefs on Issue No. 4 regarding Winters reserved rights are due 20 days after briefing on Issue No. 5 is completed, with responses due 15 days after the deadline for the opening briefs and replies due 10 days after the deadline for responses.

Opening briefs on Issue No. 3 regarding quantification standards for aboriginal and Winans rights are due 20 days after briefing on Issue No. 4 is completed, with responses due 15 days after the deadline for the opening briefs and replies due 10 days after the deadline for responses.

The United States and the Pueblos shall identify in writing any expert witness they intend to use and provide expert reports or other disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) no later than four months after entry of this Order. The State and the Coalition shall identify in writing any expert witness they intend to use for rebuttal and provide expert reports or other disclosures within 30 days after the disclosures by the United States and the Pueblos. Within one month after the disclosures by the State and the Coalition, the parties shall file a report discussing the status of the discovery/deposition phase and the schedule for briefing Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.