STIPULATION AND MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

LLOYD D. GEORGE, Senior District Judge.

COME NOW, Plaintiffs Churchill County, the City of Fallon, and the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District ("Plaintiffs"); United States Department of the Interior, S.M.R. Jewell, the Bureau of Reclamation, and Estevan Lopez ("Federal Defendants"); and Intervenors Truckee Meadows Water Authority, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Washoe County Water Conservation District, and the City of Fernley ("Intervenor-Defendants"), through their undersigned attorneys, and jointly stipulate and request that the modified briefing schedule previously approved by the Court in this case (Dkt. #78), be further modified to enlarge the time for Federal Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #108), Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #109), and Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. #111), until June 17, 2015. Under the modified briefing schedule approved by the Court on June 10, 2011 (Dkt. #78), responses to the Plaintiffs' summary judgment papers are due thirty days after filing, or June 8, 2015. In support of this request, the Parties state further as follows:

1. All Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on March 14, 2011 (Dkt. ##67, 69, 65, 71, and 72). Plaintiffs then moved to Supplement the Administrative Record (Dkt. #74) and the parties stipulated to a stay of further summary judgment briefing pending the service of a Court Order resolving the Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record (Dkt. #78). On March 9, 2015, this Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record (Dkt. #98).

2. Under the modified briefing schedule previously approved by the Court (see Dkt. #78), as further extended by stipulation of the parties and order of the Court (Dkt. #100), Plaintiffs on May 8, 2015 filed their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and Request for Judicial Notice. Under the modified briefing schedule, Defendants' responses to these filings are due thirty days thereafter, or June 8, 2015 (see Dkt. #78).

3. Federal Defendants state as follows: Federal Defendants require a short extension of time to prepare and file an Opposition/Reply brief and response to the Request for Judicial Notice due to conflicting litigation deadlines and scheduling conflicts that have arisen recently. Accordingly, Federal Defendants request an enlargement of time, until June 17, 2015, in which to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Reply in support of Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and any response to Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice. Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Defendants do not object to this request.

4. Therefore, the Parties stipulate that the briefing schedule previously approved by the Court be modified so that all responses to the Plaintiffs' summary judgment filings on May 8, 2015, be due on or before June 17, 2015.

5. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of service of Defendants' Opposition/Reply to file a Reply in support of their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

6. Opposition briefs shall not exceed 60 pages in length, and Reply briefs shall not exceed 30 pages, without leave of Court.

ORDER

The stipulated modification to the briefing schedule is APPROVED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.