United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
NORTHWEST CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES, et al., Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Federal Defendant, and CROPLIFE AMERICA, et al., Intervenor-Defendants.
Steve Mashuda, Amanda Goodin, Earthjustice, Northwest Office, Seattle, WA, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
ROBERT G. DREHER, Acting Assistant Attorney General, SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief, SRINATH JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief, MEREDITH L. FLAX, J. BRETT GROSKO, United States Department of Justice, Wildlife and Marine Resources Section, Environment & Natural Resources Section, United States Department of Justice, Counsel for Federal Defendant.
Kirsten L. Nathanson, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Attorney for Intervenor-Defendants.
PARTIES' STIPULATED MOTION FOR A STAY AND ORDER
THOMAS S. ZILLY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, et al. , Federal Defendant, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Defendant-Intervenors CropLife America, et al. , request a 31-day stay of this case, and state in support:
1. Pursuant to a stipulation, the Court ordered the parties to "confer and submit their proposal(s) for any discovery and a summary judgment briefing schedule-in accordance with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's previous orders-within seven days of the Court's order denying in whole or in part any dispositive motion(s), " Dkt. No. 142 at 2 (Oct. 21, 2013).
2. Defendant-Intervenors filed a motion to dismiss the first and third claims in Plaintiffs' supplemental complaint on October 31, 2013 (Dkt. No. 147). The Court denied Defendant-Intervenors' motion to dismiss on January 28, 2014 (Dkt. No. 161). The deadline for the parties to file a proposal for any discovery and a summary judgment briefing schedule was therefore originally February 4, 2014. The deadline for Defendant-Intervenors to file an Answer to the Supplemental Complaint is February 14, 2014.
3. On February 3, 2014, the parties requested an additional ten days to confer with their clients and each other regarding the status of this case and to determine if agreement can be reached regarding any discovery and summary judgment briefing schedule(s).
4. The Court granted the parties' request for a 10-day extension on February 4, 2014. Dkt. No. 163. The parties' proposal(s) for any discovery and summary judgment briefing schedule(s) are therefore currently due on February 14, 2014.
5. The Plaintiffs and Defendant have been engaged in substantive settlement discussions resulting in a concrete proposal for further settlement talks. In order to facilitate their participation in future discussions, Defendant has recently informed the Intervenors about the content of those discussions. Accordingly, to preserve the parties' and the Court's resources, the parties request a 31-day stay of this case to continue settlement discussions. In order to preserve resources, Defendant-Intervenors request, and the Plaintiffs and Defendant do not object, that the 31-day stay also apply to the deadline for Defendant-Intervenors' Answer.
6. This Court has authority to grant a stay pursuant to its "inherent authority to control its own docket and calendar." Yong v. INS , 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Landis v. North American Co. , 299 U.S. 248 (1936).
7. One week prior to the expiration of the requested stay, the parties will file a status report on these discussions, inlcuding the need, if any, for a discovery and summary judgment briefing schedule.
THEREFORE, in light of the above, the parties request a 31-day stay of this case including the deadline for Defendant-Intervenors' Answer, through March 17, 2014, to permit the parties to continue their ...