Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, et al v. Patricia Grantham

January 18, 2012

KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
PATRICIA GRANTHAM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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.

III. JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. section 1331. Jurisdiction and venue are not contested.

IV. DISCOVERY

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. According to the Court's docket, Defendants lodged and served the administrative record on November 9, 2011.

V. MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The Court grants the parties' modification of the page limitations. The filing deadlines are as follows:

Plaintiffs' Motion February 24, 2012 (not to exceed 30 pages) Defendants' Consolidated April 13, 2012 Opposition and Cross-Motions (not to exceed 35 pages) Plaintiffs' Consolidated May 11, 2012 Reply and Opposition (not to exceed 20 pages) Defendants' Reply June 8, 2012 (not to exceed 15 pages) Hearing June 28, 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.