United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
January 30, 2014
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al., Plaintiffs,
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
Sarah Uhlemann, Center for Biological Diversity, Seattle, WA, Brendan Cummings, Center for Biological Diversity, Joshua Tree, CA, Miyoko Sakashita, Center for Biological Diversity, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs .
ROBERT G. DREHER, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division, MEREDITH L. FLAX, Senior Trial Attorney Wildlife & Marine Resources Section, KRISTOFOR R. SWANSON, Trial Attorney Natural Resources Section, Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Defendants .
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RE: ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.
Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, the Parties jointly propose and stipulate to extend the current January 31, 2014 deadline for notifying the Court whether the Parties agree that the administrative record in this case in complete:
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2012, Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Pacific Environment, and Turtle Island Restoration Network filed this action against Defendants Export-Import Bank of the United States and Fred P. Hochberg, in his official capacity as Chairman and President of the Bank. Plaintiffs alleged Defendants violated the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA"), and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") in funding a natural gas project near Queensland, Australia. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 4, 2013, alleging Defendants violated the same laws in funding a second, adjacent natural gas facility and further alleging Defendants violated the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") in failing to properly and timely respond to Plaintiff's FOIA request;
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2013, the Parties filed a Case Management Statement wherein the Parties proposed that Defendants would submit the administrative record by December 20, 2013. The Parties further proposed that, by January 31, 2014, (1) the Parties would file a status report notifying the Court that the record is complete, or (2) Plaintiffs would file a motion regarding the completeness/sufficiency of the record. Following a Telephone Case Management Conference on November 13, 2013, the Court directed Defendants to file the administrative record by December 20, 2013 and directed the Parties to notify the Court whether the administrative record is complete by January 31, 2014. The Court further set a Telephone Case Management Conference for March 5, 2014, and pursuant to this Court's Standing Order, the Parties must file a Case Management Statement by February 24, 2014;
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' ESA claim. The motion is fully briefed and still pending before the Court. Defendants have not moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' NHPA or FOIA claims; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2013, Defendants filed their administrative record and privilege log. On January 14, 2014, the Parties conferred regarding the sufficiency of the administrative record and privilege log. Defendants are currently considering Plaintiffs' requests for clarification and supplementation. The Parties are working to resolve any dispute without the Court's intervention; however, the Parties respectfully request additional time to address the issues raised.
Therefore, the Parties jointly propose and stipulate to the following:
(1) The Court will vacate the January 31, 2014 deadline regarding the administrative record to allow the Parties additional time to resolve any record dispute;
(2) The Parties will continue to confer in good faith to resolve any record issues;
(3) In the Parties' February 24, 2014 Case Management Statement, Parties will notify the Court whether they have resolved any disputes, and, if not, the Parties will propose a briefing schedule for presenting any remaining disputes to the Court for resolution; and
(4) The Parties will propose a summary judgment briefing schedule within 10 days of the Court's order granting or denying Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Parties' notice regarding the completeness of the administrative record, or the Court's resolution of any pending motions regarding the record, whichever is later.
The Parties do not believe this extension will substantially delay resolution of this case. To the contrary, any resolution of administrative record issues without judicial intervention will negate the need for any briefing on the issue.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: