Case 3:09-cv-02233-BTM -PCL Document 28 Filed 05/14/10 Page 1 of 3

5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7

8
CALIFORNIA EX REL. IMPERIAL COUNTY Case No. 09cv2233 BTM (PCL)
9 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, et al.,
CASE MANAGEMENT
10 Plaintiffs, CONFERENCE ORDER AND
ORDER REGULATING
11 v. LODGMENT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
12 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR,
et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

15

16 On October 8, 2009, Plaintiffs, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District and

17 County of Imperial filed this action challenging the final agency decision of the Secretary of the

18 Interior approving the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement. (Doc. No. 1) The Complaint

19 named the United States Department of the Interior; Ken Salazar, Secretary of the United States

20 Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Reclamation; and Michael L. Connor,

21 Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Defendants to this action.1/ (Id.) Following the

22 Government Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint, this Court ordered an Early Neutral

23 Evaluation Conference in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis. (See Doc. No. 23.)

24 On May 13, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. the Court convened an Early Neutral Evaluation

25

26
1. The Complaint also named the following parties as Real Parties in Interest: Metropolitan
27 Water District of Southern California; San Diego County Water Authority; Imperial Irrigation
District; and Coachella Water District. At this time, these entities remain non-parties to the
28 litigation. The Court notes the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize Real Parties in
Interest to this litigation. Therefore, the Court discussed with the parties the possibility of filing a
Joint Motion to allow the Real Parties in Interest to intervene in this case or the alternative option
of filing a Motion to Intervene by the Real Parties in Interest.
 Case 3:09-cv-02233-BTM -PCL Document 28 Filed 05/14/10 Page 2 of 3

1 Conference (ENE) in the above-entitled action. (Doc. No. 27.) Appearing were Antonio

2 Rossman, Michael Rood, Alene Taber, Kathryn Casey and Katherine Turner on behalf of

3 Plaintiffs and Stephen MacFarlane, Thomas Stahl, and Robert Snow on behalf of Defendants.2/

4 Settlement of the case could not be reached at the ENE and the Court therefore discussed

5 compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 26. However, in light of the legal and

6 procedural issues present in this suit, the Court finds the case appropriate for review following

7 submission of a certified Administrative Record. Based thereon, the Court issues the following

8 Orders:

9 1. Defendants shall file the Administrative Record3/ with the Court and shall deliver

10 a copy to all parties on or before September 10, 2010.

11 2. A Case Management Conference shall be held on October 8, 2010

12 at 11:00 a.m. in the Chambers of The Honorable Peter C. Lewis, United States Magistrate Judge,

13 2003 W. Adams Avenue, El Centro, California.

14 3. In the event the case does not settle at the Case Management Conference, the

15 parties shall be prepared to discuss an appropriate briefing schedule for cross-motions for

16 summary judgment based on the Administrative Record.

17 4. Questions regarding this case may be directed to the Magistrate Judge’s law clerk

18 at (760) 353-1271.

19
2. Appearing were John Schlotterbeck and Karen Tachiki on behalf of Metropolitan Water
20 District of Southern California; Lisabeth Rothman, Amy Steinfeld and Daniel Hentschke on behalf

21 of San Diego County Water Authority; Mark Hattam and Jeffrey Garber on behalf of Imperial
Irrigation District; and Steven Abbott and Michelle Ohellette on behalf of Coachella Valley Water
22 District, Real Parties in Interest named in this litigation.

23 3. It is the Court’s preference that the Administrative Record be submitted on CD-ROM or

similar digital format. It is also requested that any administrative record submitted on CD-ROM in
24 this case be accompanied by a hard copy of an index to those records, describing by subject the
25 content of the record in bates-stamped order. The file names, both of the folders and individual
files) on any CDs should also bear the bates-stamp ranges of the document(s) they represent. If, for
26 organizational purposes, Federal Defendants also wish to include textual titles, any such text should
follow the bates stamp range. This labeling protocol is intended to facilitate the Court’s ability to
27 quickly locate documents cited by the parties. Should Federal Defendants believe a modification
to this protocol would be helpful, they may contact chambers to obtain verbal permission for an
28 alternative approach.

09 CV 2233 BTM (PCL)

2
 Case 3:09-cv-02233-BTM -PCL Document 28 Filed 05/14/10 Page 3 of 3

1 5. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties that enter this

2 case hereafter.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 DATE: May 14, 2010

5
Peter C. Lewis
6 U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
7

8 cc: The Honorable Barry T. Moskowitz

All Parties and Counsel of Record
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

09 CV 2233 BTM (PCL)

3