Joint status conference statement in California case

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nonetheless, under the circumstances, Federal Defendants believe that Plaintiffs’ proposal
to schedule a further status conference after 120 days is appropriate. As Plaintiffs note, such a
delay may allow the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to decide the
motion to transfer pending in the related case before that court. And to the extent that the Service
determines an appropriate schedule for any review of the existing delta smelt recovery criteria,
Plaintiffs’ second and third claims may effectively be rendered moot.
If the Court is not inclined to grant such a further delay, however, it is the position of
Federal Defendants that it would be appropriate at this time to set a schedule for the resolution of
all of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims by summary judgment. Federal Defendants propose that the
parties submit cross-motions for summary judgment on a staggered schedule: Plaintiffs would
submit their motion for summary judgment thirty (30) days after the Court entered its scheduling
order; Federal Defendants (and Defendant-Intervenors) would submit their opposition and cross-
motion for summary judgment thirty (30) days after that date; Plaintiffs would submit any reply
fifteen (15) days later; Federal Defendants (and Defendant-Intervenors) would submit any reply
fifteen (15) days after that; and, finally, oral argument would be set for the earliest possible date,
based on the convenience of the Court, after the close of this briefing. Federal Defendants submit
that such a schedule would allow for the timely and efficient resolution of Plaintiffs’ remaining
claims.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: May 23, 2005 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD
A Professional Corporation
By /s/ Daniel J. O’Hanlon
Daniel J. O’Hanlon
Attorneys for Plaintiffs SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA
WATER AUTHORITY and WESTLANDS WATER
DISTRICT
797416.1 -6- JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT