Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
California Deparment of Fish and Game v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
November 13, 2012
CALIFORNIA DEPARMENT OF FISH AND GAME, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND
LT. GEN. THOMAS P. BOSTICK, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
IGNACIA S. MORENO Assistant Attorney General DEVON LEHMAN MCCUNE, Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Natural Resources Section 999 18th Street, South Terrace Suite 370 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (303) 844-1487 Fax: (303) 844-1350 Email: email@example.com JOHN H. MARTIN, Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Wildlife and Marine Resources Section 999 18th Street, South Terrace Suite 370 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (303) 844-1383 Fax: (303) 844-1350 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Defendants
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
On September 7, 2012, the parties filed a joint status report to this
Court proposing a
schedule that would have Defendants file the administrative
record in this case by November 9,
2012. All parties in this case have stipulated that the time for
the filing of the administrative
record be extended to and including January 25, 2013.
Defendants need additional time to file the administrative record in this case and California Department of Fish & Game v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2:12-cv-7 1396-JAM-JFM. Defendants are working to complete the administrative record, but have 8 encountered a number of delays, largely associated with the size of the record. Currently, 9 Defendants' best estimate is that the record is about 840 gigabytes of electronic data, amounting to approximately 7.5 million pages. Defendants are working with a contractor to upload, index, and otherwise process the administrative record and have been informed by the contractor that production on November 9, 2012, is not possible. As one example of the need for additional time, the contractor found that some of the uploaded information to be processed was quantitative sampling and testing data in a format that was not intelligible outside of the engineering applications for which it was used. As a result, the processing of that data took much longer than expected.
Based on a work plan with a sequence of tasks developed between Defendants and their contractor, Defendants anticipate that they will be able to produce the administrative record to Plaintiff on or before January 25, 2013, and request an extension of time until that date. Additionally, the parties propose that sixty days after the administrative record is filed, the parties will file a supplemental joint status report with this Court proposing a new briefing schedule.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For