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 ...