Preview
1 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
2 ERIC M. KATZ, SBN 204011
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 CAITLAN MCLOON, SBN 302798
COREY MOFFAT, SBN 305620
4 GWYNNE HUNTER, SBN 293241 E-FILED
STEPHEN SUNSERI, SBN 207030 9/4/2020 3:13 PM
5 WILLIAM JENKINS, SBN 143616 Superior Court of California
Deputy Attorneys General County of Fresno
6 455 Golden Gate Avenue By: I. Herrera, Deputy
San Francisco, CA 94102
7 Telephone: (415) 510-3466
Fax: (415) 703-5480
8 E-mail: William.Jenkins@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
9 Department of Water Resources
10 [Additional counsel listed on following page]
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF FRESNO
13
14
15 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY Case No. 20CECG01556
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,
16 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
Petitioner and Plaintiff, CONFERENCE STATEMENT BY
17 RESPONDENTS AND DEFENDANTS
v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
18 WATER RESOURCES AND
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH
19 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AND WILDLIFE
WATER RESOURCES; a California State
20 Agency; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT Date: September 16, 2020
OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, a Time: 1:30 p.m.
21 California State Agency, Dept.: 54
Judge: Hon. Jeffrey Hamilton
22 Respondents/Defendants/Real Parties in
Interest,.
23
24 DOES 1 through 50,
25 Real Parties in Interest.
26
27
28
1
Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556)
1 JAMES G. MOOSE, SBN 119374
CHRISTOPHER L. STILES, SBN 280816
2 Remy Moose Manley, LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800
3 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 443-2745
4 Email: jmoose@rmmenvirolaw.com
Email: cstiles@rmmenvirolaw.com
5 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
California Department of Water Resources
6
7 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
8 RANDY L. BARROW
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
9 CAROLYN NELSON ROWAN, SBN 238526
ALLISON GOLDSMITH, SBN 238263
10 Deputy Attorneys General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
11 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
12 Telephone: (916) 210-7814
Fax: (916) 322-5609
13 E-mail: Carolyn.Rowan@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
14
California Department of Fish & Wildlife
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556)
1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 3.724 and 3.727, and Superior Court of
2 Fresno County, Local Rules, rule 2.11.1.D, Respondents and Defendants the Department of
3 Water Resources (“DWR”) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”)
4 (collectively, “Respondents”) jointly submit the following Joint Case Management Conference
5 (“CMC”) Statement. Because a petition for coordination is pending before the Judicial Council,
6 as well as a motion to stay, Respondents respectfully request the Court to continue the CMC for
7 60 days.
8 I. DESCRIPTION OF CASE
9 This action involves DWR’s Long-Term Operations of the California State Water Project
10 (“Long-Term SWP Operations”) and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final
11 EIR”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) on March 27, 2020. This
12 action also includes a challenge to CDFW’s responsible agency findings under CEQA and
13 issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (“ITP”) under the California Endangered Species Act
14 (“CESA”) for the Long-Term SWP Operations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on March
15 31, 2020. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate ordering DWR to set aside and vacate its approval of
16 the Long-Term SWP Operations and Final EIR, and also ordering CDFW to set aside and vacate
17 the ITP. Petitioners also allege contract-based claims and claims under the takings clauses of the
18 United States and California Constitutions.
19 The California State Water Project (“SWP”) is a water storage and delivery system of
20 reservoirs, aqueducts, power plants, and pumping plants extending more than 700 miles—two-
21 thirds the length of California. Planned, constructed, and operated by DWR, the SWP is the
22 nation’s largest state-built, multi-purpose, user-financed water project. It supplies water to more
23 than 27 million people in California. The SWP water also irrigates about 750,000 acres of
24 farmland, mainly in the San Joaquin Valley. In addition to water supply, the SWP was designed
25 to provide multiple benefits, including flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, power generation,
26 and recreation.
27 Over the past decade, scientific knowledge about the Delta ecosystem, the current status of
28 protected species, and their relationship to water operations has continued to grow. DWR seeks
3
Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556)
1 to incorporate this new science into the Long-Term SWP Operations. The operational updates are
2 designed to minimize the SWP’s adverse environmental effects, particularly with respect to listed
3 species and water quality, accounting for operational restrictions for the protection of listed
4 species as well other environmental conditions such as salinity and turbidity. The updates also
5 allow operational flexibility where appropriate, but incorporate specific bounds with regulatory
6 oversight. The operational updates seek to improve existing operations and to allow California to
7 continue to meet its water supply needs while protecting fish and wildlife based on the best
8 available scientific information.
9 II. PLEADINGS
10 A. Petition and Complaint
11 On May 28, 2020, Petitioners filed their Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint
12 (“Petition”). The core issues are whether: (1) DWR properly approved the Long-Term SWP
13 Operations and certified its Final EIR; (2) the Final EIR for the Long-Term SWP Operations
14 complies with CEQA; and, (3) CDFW’s issuance of the ITP for the Long-Term SWP Operations
15 complies with CESA and CEQA.
16 Petitioners allege mandamus and non-mandamus causes of action. Specifically,
17 Petitioners allege violations under CESA against CDFW (First Cause of Action) and CEQA
18 against DWR and CDFW (Second and Third Causes of Action), Breach of Contract against DWR
19 (Fourth and Sixth Cause of Action), Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
20 against DWR (Fifth Cause of Action), and violations of the takings clauses in the United States
21 and California Constitutions (Seventh Cause of Action). The non-mandamus contract and takings
22 claims relate to Petitioners’ state water contracts and participation in the SWP.
23 C. Petitions for Coordination before the Judicial Council
24 In addition to this action, seven other actions were filed involving the Long-Term SWP
25 Operations. In all, Respondents were sued by thirty-nine named petitioners, consisting of non-
26 profit organizations, special districts, joint powers authorities, public water agencies, mutual
27 water companies, a private business, an association of fishermen, and a Native American tribe.
28 The petitioners are spread across the state and have filed suit in four different superior courts
4
Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556)
1 within three separate appellate districts. Cases are now pending in Fresno, San Francisco,
2 Sacramento, and Alameda counties.
3 Because all eight cases involve the same project, including overlapping legal and factual
4 issues, Respondent DWR and another petitioner filed petitions for coordination to the Judicial
5 Council (Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (“JCCP”) Nos. 5116 and 5117). All eight
6 actions are as follows:
7 1. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al. v.
8 California Department of Water Resources, et al., County of Fresno
Superior Court Case No. 20CECG01347, filed May 4, 2020;
9
2. North Coast Rivers Alliance, et al. v. Department of Water Resources, et
10 al., County of San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF-20-517078,
filed April 28, 2020;
11
12 3. State Water Contractors, et al. v. California Department of Water
Resources, et al., County of Fresno Superior Court Case No.
13 20CECG01302, filed May 4, 2020;
14 4. Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, et al. v. California Department of Water
Resources, et al., County of Fresno Superior Court Case No.
15
20CECG01303, filed May 4, 2020;
16
5. Sierra Club, et al. v. California Department of Water Resources, County
17 of San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF-20-517120, filed April 29,
2020;
18
6. Central Delta Water Agency, et al. v. California Department of Fish and
19
Wildlife, et al., County of Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2020-
20 80003368, filed May 6, 2020;
21 7. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District v. California Department
of Water Resources, et al., County of Fresno Superior Court Case No.
22 20CECG01556, filed May 28, 2020; and
23
8. San Francisco Baykeeper, et al. v. California Department of Water
24 Resources, et al., County of Alameda Superior Court Case No.
RG20063682, filed June 5, 2020.
25
26 At the request of the Judicial Council, DWR reached an agreement with the other
27 petitioner for coordination to allow the Judicial Council to consider DWR’s coordination petition,
28 JCCP No. 5117, which eliminated the need for consideration of two petitions. As of the date of
5
Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556)
1 this CMC statement, the Judicial Council has not yet assigned a coordination motion judge to
2 consider the operative coordination petition. However, no party opposes coordination. There is a
3 disagreement regarding the appropriate site for the cases. Respondents and some petitioners
4 believe the appropriate venue is Sacramento, while others have expressed Fresno and at least one
5 party requested Alameda. Pending coordination and because of the likelihood of inconsistency
6 among the various Superior Courts, Respondents do not believe it is efficient for any of the
7 various Superior Courts to enter case management orders. As a result, Respondents request the
8 Court to continue the CMC for 60 days.
9 D. Pending Motion to Stay before the Judicial Council
10 Concurrently with filing their coordination petition, DWR also moved to stay all actions
11 and proceedings (including this one) until they are coordinated before a single coordinated trial
12 judge. Respondents believe a stay is particularly appropriate to prevent inconsistent case
13 management issues from occurring among the various actions and to promote judicial economy.
14 Without a stay, procedural and pre-trial case management issues, including issues involving the
15 administrative record, could materially affect the status, progress, evidence, and ultimate
16 resolution by the parties. Engaging in case management prior to coordination likely also could
17 cause inefficiencies and result in the unnecessary expenditure of judicial and state agency
18 resources on duplicative pre-trial issues in multiple jurisdictions.
19 Importantly, Petitioners filed a pleading with the Judicial Council supporting DWR’s
20 motion to stay this litigation, but with conditions. They want the ability to conduct discovery
21 during the stay and accomplish some non-substantive organizational matters (such as instituting
22 electronic service and extending the administrative record deadlines). Petitioners did not
23 condition their support of a stay of this litigation on Respondents responding to the Petition.
24 E. Responsive Pleading Deadline
25 Petitioners assert both mandamus and non-mandamus claims against Respondents.
26 Nevertheless, the parties agreed to a stipulation and, on July 22, 2020, the Court entered an order
27 staying Respondents’ responsive pleading deadline. Within 30 days of a coordination trial judge
28 being assigned, Respondents are required to contact the coordination trial court to select a
6
Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556)
1 responsive pleading deadline in connection with Petitioners’ non-mandamus causes of action.
2 (See Fresno Superior Court Case No. 20CECG01556, Stipulation and Order dated July 22, 2020.)
3 If coordination is denied, the parties are ordered to reappear before this Court to discuss the
4 timing of responsive pleading deadlines at that point.
5 III. CEQA Case Management Issues
6 On August 18, 2020, the parties met and conferred telephonically to discuss the topics
7 outlined in the California Rules of Court and the Fresno Superior Court Local Rules.
8 Respondents expressed that case management at this stage is premature and should wait until a
9 decision is made by the Judicial Council on coordination. Setting CEQA milestones for the
10 record, substantive motions, or trial before the petition for coordination is ruled upon may cause
11 confusion and likely will change after coordination. As a result, Respondents suggest that the
12 CMC be continued until after a ruling on the pending petition for coordination. This approach
13 was approved by the San Francisco Superior Court in at least two other pending actions, and
14 would be appropriate here, too.
15 IV. CONCLUSION
16 Based on the foregoing, at the CMC scheduled for September 16, 2020, Respondents will
17 request the Court to continue the CMC for at least 60 calendar days to a date that is convenient
18 for the Court’s calendar; or, alternatively, if the Judicial Council or coordination motion judge
19 grants Respondent’s motion to stay, to continue the CMC coextensively with any stay that may be
20 granted in the coordination proceeding.
21 If coordination is denied, Respondents suggest that the parties be directed to reappear
22 before the Court at a continued CMC and seek the Court’s guidance on setting responsive
23 pleading deadlines and all other case management issues.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
7
Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556)
1 Dated: September 4, 2020 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
2 ERIC M. KATZ
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3
Digitally signed by
4 Stephen A. Stephen A. Sunseri
Date: 2020.09.04
Sunseri 09:26:10 -07'00'
5
STEPHEN SUNSERI
6 Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
7 Department of Water Resources
8
Dated: September 4, 2020 XAVIER BECERRA
9 Attorney General of California
RANDY L. BARROW
10 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
11 Digitally signed by
Carolyn Carolyn Rowan
12
Date: 2020.09.04
Rowan 09:11:11 -07'00'
13 CAROLYN NELSON ROWAN
Deputy Attorney General
14 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
15
16
17
SF2020800308
18 82504685.docx
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556)
Preview
1 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 2 ERIC M. KATZ, SBN 204011 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 CAITLAN MCLOON, SBN 302798 COREY MOFFAT, SBN 305620 4 GWYNNE HUNTER, SBN 293241 E-FILED STEPHEN SUNSERI, SBN 207030 9/4/2020 3:13 PM 5 WILLIAM JENKINS, SBN 143616 Superior Court of California Deputy Attorneys General County of Fresno 6 455 Golden Gate Avenue By: I. Herrera, Deputy San Francisco, CA 94102 7 Telephone: (415) 510-3466 Fax: (415) 703-5480 8 E-mail: William.Jenkins@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 9 Department of Water Resources 10 [Additional counsel listed on following page] 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF FRESNO 13 14 15 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY Case No. 20CECG01556 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, 16 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT Petitioner and Plaintiff, CONFERENCE STATEMENT BY 17 RESPONDENTS AND DEFENDANTS v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 18 WATER RESOURCES AND CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 19 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AND WILDLIFE WATER RESOURCES; a California State 20 Agency; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT Date: September 16, 2020 OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, a Time: 1:30 p.m. 21 California State Agency, Dept.: 54 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey Hamilton 22 Respondents/Defendants/Real Parties in Interest,. 23 24 DOES 1 through 50, 25 Real Parties in Interest. 26 27 28 1 Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556) 1 JAMES G. MOOSE, SBN 119374 CHRISTOPHER L. STILES, SBN 280816 2 Remy Moose Manley, LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 3 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-2745 4 Email: jmoose@rmmenvirolaw.com Email: cstiles@rmmenvirolaw.com 5 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant California Department of Water Resources 6 7 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 8 RANDY L. BARROW Supervising Deputy Attorney General 9 CAROLYN NELSON ROWAN, SBN 238526 ALLISON GOLDSMITH, SBN 238263 10 Deputy Attorneys General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 11 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 12 Telephone: (916) 210-7814 Fax: (916) 322-5609 13 E-mail: Carolyn.Rowan@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 14 California Department of Fish & Wildlife 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556) 1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 3.724 and 3.727, and Superior Court of 2 Fresno County, Local Rules, rule 2.11.1.D, Respondents and Defendants the Department of 3 Water Resources (“DWR”) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) 4 (collectively, “Respondents”) jointly submit the following Joint Case Management Conference 5 (“CMC”) Statement. Because a petition for coordination is pending before the Judicial Council, 6 as well as a motion to stay, Respondents respectfully request the Court to continue the CMC for 7 60 days. 8 I. DESCRIPTION OF CASE 9 This action involves DWR’s Long-Term Operations of the California State Water Project 10 (“Long-Term SWP Operations”) and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final 11 EIR”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) on March 27, 2020. This 12 action also includes a challenge to CDFW’s responsible agency findings under CEQA and 13 issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (“ITP”) under the California Endangered Species Act 14 (“CESA”) for the Long-Term SWP Operations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on March 15 31, 2020. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate ordering DWR to set aside and vacate its approval of 16 the Long-Term SWP Operations and Final EIR, and also ordering CDFW to set aside and vacate 17 the ITP. Petitioners also allege contract-based claims and claims under the takings clauses of the 18 United States and California Constitutions. 19 The California State Water Project (“SWP”) is a water storage and delivery system of 20 reservoirs, aqueducts, power plants, and pumping plants extending more than 700 miles—two- 21 thirds the length of California. Planned, constructed, and operated by DWR, the SWP is the 22 nation’s largest state-built, multi-purpose, user-financed water project. It supplies water to more 23 than 27 million people in California. The SWP water also irrigates about 750,000 acres of 24 farmland, mainly in the San Joaquin Valley. In addition to water supply, the SWP was designed 25 to provide multiple benefits, including flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, power generation, 26 and recreation. 27 Over the past decade, scientific knowledge about the Delta ecosystem, the current status of 28 protected species, and their relationship to water operations has continued to grow. DWR seeks 3 Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556) 1 to incorporate this new science into the Long-Term SWP Operations. The operational updates are 2 designed to minimize the SWP’s adverse environmental effects, particularly with respect to listed 3 species and water quality, accounting for operational restrictions for the protection of listed 4 species as well other environmental conditions such as salinity and turbidity. The updates also 5 allow operational flexibility where appropriate, but incorporate specific bounds with regulatory 6 oversight. The operational updates seek to improve existing operations and to allow California to 7 continue to meet its water supply needs while protecting fish and wildlife based on the best 8 available scientific information. 9 II. PLEADINGS 10 A. Petition and Complaint 11 On May 28, 2020, Petitioners filed their Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint 12 (“Petition”). The core issues are whether: (1) DWR properly approved the Long-Term SWP 13 Operations and certified its Final EIR; (2) the Final EIR for the Long-Term SWP Operations 14 complies with CEQA; and, (3) CDFW’s issuance of the ITP for the Long-Term SWP Operations 15 complies with CESA and CEQA. 16 Petitioners allege mandamus and non-mandamus causes of action. Specifically, 17 Petitioners allege violations under CESA against CDFW (First Cause of Action) and CEQA 18 against DWR and CDFW (Second and Third Causes of Action), Breach of Contract against DWR 19 (Fourth and Sixth Cause of Action), Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 20 against DWR (Fifth Cause of Action), and violations of the takings clauses in the United States 21 and California Constitutions (Seventh Cause of Action). The non-mandamus contract and takings 22 claims relate to Petitioners’ state water contracts and participation in the SWP. 23 C. Petitions for Coordination before the Judicial Council 24 In addition to this action, seven other actions were filed involving the Long-Term SWP 25 Operations. In all, Respondents were sued by thirty-nine named petitioners, consisting of non- 26 profit organizations, special districts, joint powers authorities, public water agencies, mutual 27 water companies, a private business, an association of fishermen, and a Native American tribe. 28 The petitioners are spread across the state and have filed suit in four different superior courts 4 Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556) 1 within three separate appellate districts. Cases are now pending in Fresno, San Francisco, 2 Sacramento, and Alameda counties. 3 Because all eight cases involve the same project, including overlapping legal and factual 4 issues, Respondent DWR and another petitioner filed petitions for coordination to the Judicial 5 Council (Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (“JCCP”) Nos. 5116 and 5117). All eight 6 actions are as follows: 7 1. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al. v. 8 California Department of Water Resources, et al., County of Fresno Superior Court Case No. 20CECG01347, filed May 4, 2020; 9 2. North Coast Rivers Alliance, et al. v. Department of Water Resources, et 10 al., County of San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF-20-517078, filed April 28, 2020; 11 12 3. State Water Contractors, et al. v. California Department of Water Resources, et al., County of Fresno Superior Court Case No. 13 20CECG01302, filed May 4, 2020; 14 4. Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, et al. v. California Department of Water Resources, et al., County of Fresno Superior Court Case No. 15 20CECG01303, filed May 4, 2020; 16 5. Sierra Club, et al. v. California Department of Water Resources, County 17 of San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF-20-517120, filed April 29, 2020; 18 6. Central Delta Water Agency, et al. v. California Department of Fish and 19 Wildlife, et al., County of Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2020- 20 80003368, filed May 6, 2020; 21 7. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District v. California Department of Water Resources, et al., County of Fresno Superior Court Case No. 22 20CECG01556, filed May 28, 2020; and 23 8. San Francisco Baykeeper, et al. v. California Department of Water 24 Resources, et al., County of Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG20063682, filed June 5, 2020. 25 26 At the request of the Judicial Council, DWR reached an agreement with the other 27 petitioner for coordination to allow the Judicial Council to consider DWR’s coordination petition, 28 JCCP No. 5117, which eliminated the need for consideration of two petitions. As of the date of 5 Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556) 1 this CMC statement, the Judicial Council has not yet assigned a coordination motion judge to 2 consider the operative coordination petition. However, no party opposes coordination. There is a 3 disagreement regarding the appropriate site for the cases. Respondents and some petitioners 4 believe the appropriate venue is Sacramento, while others have expressed Fresno and at least one 5 party requested Alameda. Pending coordination and because of the likelihood of inconsistency 6 among the various Superior Courts, Respondents do not believe it is efficient for any of the 7 various Superior Courts to enter case management orders. As a result, Respondents request the 8 Court to continue the CMC for 60 days. 9 D. Pending Motion to Stay before the Judicial Council 10 Concurrently with filing their coordination petition, DWR also moved to stay all actions 11 and proceedings (including this one) until they are coordinated before a single coordinated trial 12 judge. Respondents believe a stay is particularly appropriate to prevent inconsistent case 13 management issues from occurring among the various actions and to promote judicial economy. 14 Without a stay, procedural and pre-trial case management issues, including issues involving the 15 administrative record, could materially affect the status, progress, evidence, and ultimate 16 resolution by the parties. Engaging in case management prior to coordination likely also could 17 cause inefficiencies and result in the unnecessary expenditure of judicial and state agency 18 resources on duplicative pre-trial issues in multiple jurisdictions. 19 Importantly, Petitioners filed a pleading with the Judicial Council supporting DWR’s 20 motion to stay this litigation, but with conditions. They want the ability to conduct discovery 21 during the stay and accomplish some non-substantive organizational matters (such as instituting 22 electronic service and extending the administrative record deadlines). Petitioners did not 23 condition their support of a stay of this litigation on Respondents responding to the Petition. 24 E. Responsive Pleading Deadline 25 Petitioners assert both mandamus and non-mandamus claims against Respondents. 26 Nevertheless, the parties agreed to a stipulation and, on July 22, 2020, the Court entered an order 27 staying Respondents’ responsive pleading deadline. Within 30 days of a coordination trial judge 28 being assigned, Respondents are required to contact the coordination trial court to select a 6 Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556) 1 responsive pleading deadline in connection with Petitioners’ non-mandamus causes of action. 2 (See Fresno Superior Court Case No. 20CECG01556, Stipulation and Order dated July 22, 2020.) 3 If coordination is denied, the parties are ordered to reappear before this Court to discuss the 4 timing of responsive pleading deadlines at that point. 5 III. CEQA Case Management Issues 6 On August 18, 2020, the parties met and conferred telephonically to discuss the topics 7 outlined in the California Rules of Court and the Fresno Superior Court Local Rules. 8 Respondents expressed that case management at this stage is premature and should wait until a 9 decision is made by the Judicial Council on coordination. Setting CEQA milestones for the 10 record, substantive motions, or trial before the petition for coordination is ruled upon may cause 11 confusion and likely will change after coordination. As a result, Respondents suggest that the 12 CMC be continued until after a ruling on the pending petition for coordination. This approach 13 was approved by the San Francisco Superior Court in at least two other pending actions, and 14 would be appropriate here, too. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing, at the CMC scheduled for September 16, 2020, Respondents will 17 request the Court to continue the CMC for at least 60 calendar days to a date that is convenient 18 for the Court’s calendar; or, alternatively, if the Judicial Council or coordination motion judge 19 grants Respondent’s motion to stay, to continue the CMC coextensively with any stay that may be 20 granted in the coordination proceeding. 21 If coordination is denied, Respondents suggest that the parties be directed to reappear 22 before the Court at a continued CMC and seek the Court’s guidance on setting responsive 23 pleading deadlines and all other case management issues. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 7 Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556) 1 Dated: September 4, 2020 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 2 ERIC M. KATZ Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 Digitally signed by 4 Stephen A. Stephen A. Sunseri Date: 2020.09.04 Sunseri 09:26:10 -07'00' 5 STEPHEN SUNSERI 6 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 7 Department of Water Resources 8 Dated: September 4, 2020 XAVIER BECERRA 9 Attorney General of California RANDY L. BARROW 10 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 11 Digitally signed by Carolyn Carolyn Rowan 12 Date: 2020.09.04 Rowan 09:11:11 -07'00' 13 CAROLYN NELSON ROWAN Deputy Attorney General 14 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant California Department of Fish and Wildlife 15 16 17 SF2020800308 18 82504685.docx 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Respondents and Defendants (20CECG01556)