IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
March 5, 2013
THE SIERRA CLUB AND ENVIRONMENTAL
INTEGRITY PROJECT, THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE PLAINTIFFS,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 26 DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Maria-Elena
This is an action brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, to compel production of documents. The information request upon which this suit is based, sought 3 information submitted to defendant relating to the operations of coal-fired power plants owned by the 4 Luminant Corporation.
ment on same, on May 20, 2012, the Court vacated the scheduled hearing and ordered the parties to meet and confer in her chambers on May 30, 2012. Dkt. No. 50. After fruitful discussion in chambers, 9 the parties agreed to continue with informal settlement discussions in an effort to resolve this matter 10 without further litigation. Accordingly, the parties engaged in a number of direct and informal settlement 11 conference calls and have exchanged a settlement proposal. Additionally, as the Parties informed the 12
Court, recent EPA enforcement activities involving Luminant have impacted EIP and Sierra Club's in-13 terest in the documents at issue in this matter. Because the parties required additional time in which to 14 15 explore possible resolution of this case, when they reported back to the Court on September 20, 2012,
they requested that the case be stayed until November 21, 2012 by which time they would inform the 17
The parties reported to the court on November 21, 2012, that they desired additional time to ex-
19 plore a possible settlement of this case. Dkt. No. 54. Accordingly, the Court set December 21, 2012 as a 20 deadline for the parties to report their progress in this regard. Dkt. No. 55. 21 22
days to explore a possible settlement of this case. Dkt. No. 56. Accordingly, the Court set February 21, 24
After the parties completed briefing cross-motions for summary judgment, but before oral argu-
Court of the status of their settlement efforts. Dkt. No. 52. The Court so ordered. Dkt. No. 53. 18
The parties then reported to the court on December 19, 2012, that they desired an additional 60 2013 as a deadline for the parties to report their progress in this regard. Dkt. No. 57. The Parties apolo-25 gize to the Court that they did not submit this report by February 21, 2013. 26
27 reaching a settlement, and are closer to a general consensus on how to settle the case. However, because 28
2 BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C. 11-846 MEJ 1035 1/2 Monroe Street
Eugene, OR 97402
The Parties have continued their dialogue, believe they are making substantive progress toward of the complexity of the issues involved, the Parties require additional time to negotiate the details of the 2 settlement terms and obtain approval for a final settlement from their respective organizations. They 3 therefore desire additional time in which to explore a negotiated resolution to this dispute. 4 Accordingly, the Parties request that they be provided an additional 90 days in which to attempt 5 to conclude their settlement negotiations and report back to the Court on the status of same no later than 6 7 May 28, 2013.
Respectfully submitted for the Court's consideration, this 27th day of February, 2013. MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney 9 10 11 __s/ David Bahr__________________ _s/ Abraham Simmons _____ 12 David Bahr (Oregon Bar No. 901990) ABRAHAM SIMMONS Bahr Law Offices, P.C. Assistant United States Attorney 13 1035 1/2 Monroe Street Attorneys for Federal Defendant 14 Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 556-6439 15 firstname.lastname@example.org 16 17 The parties shall file an updated status report by June 11, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.