Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, C16-0950RSL (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20171108f27
Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the parties' "Stipulated Motion to Consolidate Actions" filed in C16-0950RSL. Dkt. # 30. Having reviewed the motion SCHEDULING ORDER and the proposed order, it appears that the parties wish to have the two abovecaptioned matters heard on a coordinated schedule, but are not requesting that they be consolidated into a single cause number with a single operative pleading. To that extent, the motion is GRANTED. The
Summary: ORDER ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the parties' "Stipulated Motion to Consolidate Actions" filed in C16-0950RSL. Dkt. # 30. Having reviewed the motion SCHEDULING ORDER and the proposed order, it appears that the parties wish to have the two abovecaptioned matters heard on a coordinated schedule, but are not requesting that they be consolidated into a single cause number with a single operative pleading. To that extent, the motion is GRANTED. The ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the parties' "Stipulated Motion to Consolidate Actions" filed in C16-0950RSL. Dkt. # 30. Having reviewed the motion SCHEDULING ORDER and the proposed order, it appears that the parties wish to have the two abovecaptioned matters heard on a coordinated schedule, but are not requesting that they be consolidated into a single cause number with a single operative pleading. To that extent, the motion is GRANTED.
The case management schedule issued in C16-0950RSL (Dkt. # 21) is hereby VACATED. In that matter, defendants have distributed copies of their 2012 and 2017 NWP administrative records to the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound. The Coalition has reviewed the administrative records and represents that the records produced are, to the best of its knowledge, complete and that other than submission of Standing Declarations, the Coalition will not seek the admission of extra record evidence. The following case management deadlines will govern both C16-950RSL and C17-1209RSL going forward:
November 27, 2017 Defendants to lodge their administrative
record for the claims in C17-1209RSL
November 27, 2017 Defendants and Proposed Intervenor Pacific
Coast Shellfish Growers Association will
Answer or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint in C17-1209RSL
January 26, 2018 If no motion to dismiss is pending, Plaintiff
and Proposed Intervenor in C17-1209RSL
will identify for Defendants any issues
regarding completeness of the
administrative record and/or any issues
regarding the admission of extra record
evidence for non-ESA claims.1 The parties
will attempt to negotiate a resolution should
a dispute arise. If a motion to dismiss is
pending, Plaintiff and Proposed Intervenor
in C17-1209RSL will identify for
Defendants any issues regarding
completeness of their administrative record
and/or any issues regarding the admission
of extra record evidence for non-ESA
claims within 30 days following the Court's
disposition of the motion to dismiss.
30 days after parties complete review Deadline for motions regarding the AR in
of the Defendants' AR and identify C17-1209RSL, including any motion
any issues regarding completeness of regarding the completeness of the AR
the AR and/or any admission of and/or admission of extra record evidence
extra record evidence for non-ESA for non-ESA claims.2 If no such motions
claims are filed, any challenges regarding the AR
will be deemed waived.
45 days after AR is deemed complete Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment
by stipulation or Court order due.3 The motions will be noted for
consideration on the 28th Friday after filing.
75 days after Plaintiffs' motions for Oppositions and cross-motions for
summary judgment are filed summary judgment due. Defendants,
Intervenor, and Proposed Intervenor shall
consult on briefing to avoid redundancy.
75 days after oppositions and cross-motions Plaintiffs' replies and oppositions to cross-motions
are filed due.
45 days after replies and oppositions Replies due. Defendants, Intervenor, and
to cross-motions are filed Proposed Intervenor to consult on briefing
to avoid redundancy.
Defendants, Intervenor, and Proposed Intervenor reserve the right to object to, move to strike, or otherwise oppose the proposed introduction of any extra record evidence in support of any claims made by any other party. Defendants, Intervenor, and Proposed Intervenor are encouraged to file a single consolidated brief in each action in response to the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment.
FootNotes
1. The parties disagree on the scope of judicial review for Plaintiff's ESA claims. By entering this stipulation, Defendants do not waive any argument regarding (i) the proper scope of judicial review for Plaintiff's ESA claims, or (ii) the propriety of considering extra-record evidence related to Plaintiff's ESA claims.
2. If any motion regarding the completeness of the Defendants' administrative record is made, Defendants will respond 30 days after such motion is lodged, and Plaintiff and/or Proposed Intervenor shall file a Reply within 14 days following Defendants' response.
3. Because the cases are not being consolidated, the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat is not a party to C17-1209RSL, and Center for Food Safety is not a party to C16-0950RSL. While the parties may, and are encouraged to, coordinate briefing efforts to improve efficiency and avoid redundancy, each plaintiff must file papers in its own lawsuit.
Source: Leagle
