Opinion
3:73-cv-00127-MMD-CSD In Equity C-127
08-23-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a corporation, et al., Defendants. WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE Plaintiff-Intervernor,
GORDON H. DEPAOLI, NSB #195, DALE E. FERGUSON, NSB #4986, DOMENICO R. DePAOLI, NSB #11553, Woodburn and Wedge, Attorneys for Walker River Irrigation District. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE By: / s / Guss Guarino (per authorization) Guss Guarino, Trial Attorney Marisa J. Hazell, Trial Attorney Environment and Natural Resources Div., David L. Negri Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Attorneys for United States of America. LAW OFFICES OF WES WILLIAMS, JR., P.C., (per authorization) Wes Williams, Jr., NSB 6864, MEYER, WALKER & WALKER, P.C., (per authorization) Alice E. Walker, Attorneys for Walker River Paiute Tribe. BEST BEST & KRIEGER, (per authorization), Roderick E. Walston, Attorney for Centennial Livestock and Lyon County. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, (per authorization) Nhu Q. Nguyen, NSB 7844, Attorneys for California State Agencies. THE COUNTY OF MONO (CA), (per authorization) Stacey Simon, County Counsel, Emily Fox, Dep. County Counsel, Attorneys for Mono County. STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (per authorization) Anthony J. Walsh, NSB 14128, Deputy Attorney General, Attorneys for Nevada Department of Wildlife. SIMONS HALL JOHNSTON PC (per authorization) Brad M. Johnston, NSB 8515, Attorneys for Desert Pearl Farms, Peri Family Ranch, LLC, Peri & Peri LLC, and Frade Ranches.
GORDON H. DEPAOLI, NSB #195, DALE E. FERGUSON, NSB #4986, DOMENICO R. DePAOLI, NSB #11553, Woodburn and Wedge, Attorneys for Walker River Irrigation District.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE By: / s / Guss Guarino (per authorization) Guss Guarino, Trial Attorney Marisa J. Hazell, Trial Attorney Environment and Natural Resources Div., David L. Negri Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Attorneys for United States of America.
LAW OFFICES OF WES WILLIAMS, JR., P.C., (per authorization) Wes Williams, Jr., NSB 6864, MEYER, WALKER & WALKER, P.C., (per authorization) Alice E. Walker, Attorneys for Walker River Paiute Tribe.
BEST BEST & KRIEGER, (per authorization), Roderick E. Walston, Attorney for Centennial Livestock and Lyon County.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, (per authorization) Nhu Q. Nguyen, NSB 7844, Attorneys for California State Agencies.
THE COUNTY OF MONO (CA), (per authorization) Stacey Simon, County Counsel, Emily Fox, Dep. County Counsel, Attorneys for Mono County.
STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (per authorization) Anthony J. Walsh, NSB 14128, Deputy Attorney General, Attorneys for Nevada Department of Wildlife.
SIMONS HALL JOHNSTON PC (per authorization) Brad M. Johnston, NSB 8515, Attorneys for Desert Pearl Farms, Peri Family Ranch, LLC, Peri & Peri LLC, and Frade Ranches.
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING THE STAY REGARDING DISCOVERY AND MOTION SCHEDULE
1. On June 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs and Principal Defendants (“Parties”) requested a 90-day stay of the Scheduling Order and obligations outlined therein to give the Parties the opportunity to resolve the Tribe's outstanding water right claims by agreement. Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying the Order Regarding Discovery and Motion Schedule (ECF No. 2701) (“Stipulation”).
Order Regarding Discovery and Motion Schedule and Procedure (ECF No. 2611).
2. On June 24, 2022 the Court granted the Parties' request. Order Staying the Order Regarding Discovery and Motion Schedule (ECF No. 2702) (“Stay Order”).
3. Based upon the progress made by the Parties during that first 90-day Stay, on September 15, 2022, the Parties requested a second 90-day Stay (ECF 2706)(“Second Stay Order”).
4. Based upon the progress made by the Parties during that second 90-day Stay, on December 15, 2022, the Parties requested a third 90-day Stay (ECF 2713; 2714)(“Third Stay Order”).
5. Based upon the progress made by the Parties during the Third Stay Order, the Parties requested a fourth 90-day Stay (ECF 2718; 2719)(“Fourth Stay Order”).
6. Based upon the progress made by the Parties during the Fourth Stay Order on June 1, 2022, the Parties requested a fifth 90-day Stay (ECF 2725; 2726)(“Fifth Stay Order”).
7. In the request for the Fifth Stay Order, the Parties stated that “if at any time during the fifth 90-day stay period, one or more of the Final Approval Authorities of a Negotiating Party rejects the material provisions of the proposed Stipulation, that party or parties will inform the others and the Court of the rejection and that a settlement will not be possible. Alternatively, within seven (7) days before the expiration of any stay granted the Parties will inform the Court that additional time is needed to obtain required approvals. In either case, the Parties will seek additional relief from the Court accordingly as needed and as contemplated by paragraphs 14 and 16 of the Scheduling Order.”
8. Since June 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs and Principal Defendants Walker River Irrigation District and Nevada Department of Wildlife (the “Negotiating Parties”) have reached agreement on the terms and provisions of a Final Stipulation which they are in the process of presenting to those persons who have final approval authority over it (the “Final Approval Authorities”), but that process is not yet complete.
9. Accordingly, the Negotiating Parties believe that a sixth 90-day stay of the Scheduling Order is justified and would be beneficial and productive to obtaining approval of the proposed Stipulation by the Negotiating Parties' Final Approval Authorities.
10. Based upon the status of this matter and of the Archive/Records Offices, it is no longer necessary to report on their status which was required by Paragraph 3 of the Order Amending Order Regarding Discovery and Motion Schedule as Previously Amended (ECF 2676).
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the Fifth Stay Order, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. The Scheduling Order and obligations outlined therein should be stayed for a sixth 90-day stay period to give the Negotiating Parties the opportunity to obtain approval from their respective Final Approval Authorities of the proposed Stipulation to resolve the Tribe's outstanding water right claims.
2. If at any time during the sixth 90-day stay period, one or more of the Final Approval Authorities of a Negotiating Party rejects the material provisions of the proposed Stipulation, that party or parties will inform the others and the Court of the rejection and that a settlement will not be possible. Alternatively, within seven (7) days before the expiration of any stay granted the Parties will inform the Court that additional time is needed to obtain required approvals. In either case, the Parties will seek additional relief from the Court accordingly as needed and as contemplated by paragraphs 14 and 16 of the Scheduling Order.
3. The Principal Defendants are no longer required to report to the Plaintiffs' counsel and to the Court on the first judicial day of each month concerning the status of access to each of the Archive/Records Offices as has been required by paragraph 3 of the Stipulation and Order Amending Order Regarding Discovery and Motion Schedule as Previously Amended (ECF 2676).
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.