UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 28, 2011
IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
KEN SALAZAR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS,
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, ET AL. DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
After reviewing the parties' Joint Status Report, the Court makes the following Pretrial Scheduling Order.
I. SERVICE OF PROCESS
All named Defendants have been served and no further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown.
II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS
No joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown.
Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. section 1131(a). Jurisdiction and venue are not contested.
In agreeing that no need for additional discovery is indicated at this time, the parties appear to concede that judicial review of agency decisions is limited to the administrative record, unless a need to expand that record is demonstrated by the parties. See Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S., 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706. Consequently, the Court's review will be limited to the administrative record unless good cause is found for augmentation of that record. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs a copy of the entire administrative record within 60 days of the date of this Pretrial Scheduling Order. The filing of the written administrative record shall be filed concurrently with the opening brief.
V. MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE
The Court grants the parties' modification of the page limitations. The filing deadlines are as follows:
Plaintiffs' Opening Brief November 10, 2011 (not to exceed 45 pages)
Federal Defendants' and December 8, 2011 Intervenors' Cross-Motions/Response Briefs (not to exceed 45 pages)
Plaintiffs' Response/ January 5, 2012 Reply Brief (not to exceed 60 pages)
Federal Defendants' and January 19, 2012 Intervenors' Reply Briefs (not to exceed 25 pages)
Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply January 26, 2012 Brief (not to exceed 20 pages) Hearing February 23, 2012, 2:00 p.m.
All purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely pretrial motions. Failure to comply with Local Rules 230 and 260, as modified by this Order, may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion*fn1 may result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the non-movant to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial.
For the Court's convenience, citations to Supreme Court cases should include parallel citations to the Supreme Court Reporter.
The parties have informed the Court that they intend to adjudicate this matter by way of dispositive motions; therefore, a trial date has not been scheduled.
VII. MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Pretrial Scheduling Order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause. Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation alone to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order does not constitute good cause. Except in extraordinary circumstances, unavailability of witnesses or counsel will not constitute good cause.
VIII. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
This Pretrial Scheduling Order will become final without further order of the Court unless objections are filed within seven (7) court days of service of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.