California Natural Resources Agency v. Raimondo

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 20, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00426
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF No. 1:20−cv−00431−DAD−EPG 11 FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, et al., ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 12 Plaintiff, UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 13 v. (Doc. No. 271) 14 WILBUR ROSS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 THE CALIFORNIA NATURAL No. 1:20-cv-00426-DAD-EPG 18 RESOURCES AGENCY, et al., ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 19 Plaintiffs, UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 2021

20 v. (Doc. No. 185)

21 WILBUR ROSS, et al., 22 Defendants. 23 24

25 /////

26 /////

27 /////

28 ///// 1 Plaintiffs1 in the above-captioned actions bring closely related claims against the National 2 Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), the U.S. 3 Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”), and various official representatives of those agencies 4 (collectively, “Federal Defendants”). (CNRA, Doc. No. 51; PCFFA, Doc. No. 52.) Both cases 5 involve challenges to the adoption by NMFS and FWS, respectively, of a pair of “biological 6 opinions” issued in 2019 pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C § 1531 et 7 seq. Those biological opinions address the impact of Reclamation’s updated plan for the long- 8 term operation of the Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and the State Water Project (“SWP”) (the 9 “Proposed Action”) on various ESA-listed species. 10 Before the court for decision are Federal Defendants’ identical motions to stay, filed in 11 both cases. From a practical perspective, the only deadlines that will be directly impacted by the 12 requested stays—which seek a pause in all litigation activity up to and through September 30, 13 2021—relate to pending motions brought by both sets of plaintiffs to expand the respective 14 administrative records. Although the administrative record motions were initially filed in 15 December 2020 (Doc. No. 2242), Federal Defendants have requested and obtained several 16 stipulated extensions of their deadlines for filing oppositions, the latest of which expired on July 17 19, 2021. (Doc. No. 270.) In lieu of filing oppositions, Federal Defendants filed these motions to 18 stay on July 14, 2021. (Doc. No. 271) 19 Federal Defendants’ request is governed by the standard set forth in Landis v. North 20 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). See Elec. Frontier Found. v. Off. of Dir. of Nat. Intel., 21 No. C 08-01023 JSW, 2009 WL 773340, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2009) (applying Landis 22 factors to a stay request premised upon need for review of changed policies promulgated by new 23

24 1 Plaintiffs in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Ross, 1:20-cv-00431- DAD-EPG (PCFFA), are a coalition of six environmental organizations led by PCFFA. Plaintiffs 25 in California Natural Resources Agency v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00426-DAD-EPG (CNRA), are the People of the State of California, California’s Natural Resources Agency, and California’s 26 Environmental Protection Agency. 27 2 Because many of the same documents were filed in both cases, unless otherwise noted, the 28 court will reference here only docket entries from PCFFA. 1 administration). In determining whether to grant a stay, courts in the Ninth Circuit weigh the 2 “competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay,” including:

3 [1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 4 required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, 5 proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 6 7 Lockyer v Mirant, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 8 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). 9 Federal Defendants contend that the stay will allow several parallel administrative 10 processes to proceed and that those processes may “bear significantly upon these cases.” (Doc. 11 No. 272 at 9.) Among other things, Federal Defendants indicate that they have “committed” to 12 reinitiate consultation under Section 7 of the ESA on the biological opinions challenged in these 13 cases by October 1, 2021. (Id. at 10.) In addition, federal and state regulators presently are 14 engaged in a process designed to “reconcile” the Proposed Action as evaluated in the challenged 15 biological opinions with measures imposed by state regulators under the California Endangered 16 Species Act (“CESA”) to protect CESA-listed species. (Id. at 9.) The primary reason offered by 17 Federal Defendants in support of the requested stay is that it will conserve federal agency staff 18 resources that are needed to deal with the ongoing drought emergency impacting CVP/SWP 19 operations. (Id. at 11–12.) 20 Perhaps because relevant state agencies are engaged directly in the above-mentioned 21 “reconciliation” process with Federal Defendants, the state agency plaintiff in CNRA does not 22 object to the stay. (CNRA, Doc. No. 192.) The PCFFA plaintiffs, however, do object, arguing: 23 (1) the proposed stay will harm their interests in having their claims resolved in a timely manner; 24 (2) meanwhile, project operations, which remain subject to the challenged biological opinions, are 25 continuing to harm the ESA-listed species of concern; and (3) Federal Defendants have not 26 demonstrated a sufficient need for the stay. (Doc. No. 278.) 27 As to the first and second points raised by the PCFFA plaintiffs, the essence of their 28 argument is not that the several weeks between now and September 30, 2021 will dramatically 1 impact the overall speed of this highly complicated lawsuit.3 Rather, their core concern appears 2 to be Federal Defendants’ seeming (at least from the PCFFA plaintiffs’ perspective) 3 unwillingness to grapple with the process of establishing the kind of interim regulatory regime 4 plaintiffs believe will be required should the planned ESA reconsultation actually be triggered on 5 October 1. (See id. at 16.) The record indicates that in this critically dry year, many aspects of 6 CVP/SWP operations are being governed by regulatory controls other than the challenged 7 biological opinions. (See Doc. No. 272 at 7 (Federal Defendants indicating that state-imposed 8 requirements under State Water Resources Control Board Decision-1641 are now “primarily 9 driving CVP/SWP” operations).) Nonetheless, the PCFFA plaintiffs maintain that harm to the 10 species of concern is ongoing and that at least some of that harm can be traced to the challenged 11 biological opinions. (See id. at 19–23.) Whether and to what extent the challenged biological 12 opinions are to blame for the current dire situation was the subject of extensive briefing and 13 argument before this court last year and remains a central dispute in these lawsuits. It is simply 14 unrealistic for the court to engage with these issues in earnest in a timeframe that is relevant to the 15 pending motion to stay. The papers filed by the parties in connection with the motion to stay, 16 including those filed by defendant intervenors, make this abundantly clear. (See Doc. Nos. 281, 17 282.) Yet, the court shares the PCFFA plaintiffs’ concern that what really matters is not the 18 current proposed stay but what happens next. Federal Defendants do appear to be (likely 19 erroneously) assuming that merely re-initiating consultation will moot the remainder of the 20 PCFFA lawsuit. There is arguably analogous, persuasive case authority that suggests otherwise. 21 NRDC v. Norton, No. 1:05-cv-01207-OWW-LJO, 2007 WL 14283, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2007) 22 (declining to stay a challenge to earlier version of the biological opinions at issue in this case after 23 the parties failed to reach an interim agreement as to how to operate the CVP and SWP while re- 24 consultation took place). 25 ///// 26 3 The PCFFA plaintiffs also make the more direct argument that further delay in resolving the 27 pending administrative record motions is impeding their and the public’s interest in having certain disputed documents unsealed. (Doc. No. 278 at 17.) However, why this unsealing is required on 28 a particular timeline is not clear to the court. 1 The PCFFA plaintiffs also question Federal Defendants’ assertion that substantial agency 2 staff resources (as opposed to Department of Justice attorney time) will be required for the 3 Federal Defendants to finalize their opposition to the pending motion to supplement the 4 administrative record in PCFFA. (Doc. No. 278 at 23–25.) Federal Defendants double down on 5 their position in reply, claiming that the same staff who must review the “enormous number” of 6 documents implicated by plaintiffs’ administrative record motions are also “absorbed in 7 managing the system under extreme drought conditions while also attempting to complete the 8 2019 biological opinion reconsideration and reconciliation process and reinitiate consultation.” 9 (Doc. No. 280 at 4.) The PCFFA plaintiffs correctly point out that this assertion is at least in part 10 inconsistent with Federal Defendants’ prior representations that they already have been working 11 on evaluating the “issues presented and specific documents identified” in the administrative 12 record motions. (See Doc. 272 at 4.) Moreover, it is well established that simply being required 13 to defend a case is not generally considered a hardship warranting the granting of a stay. See Ctr. 14 For Biological Diversity v. Ross, 419 F. Supp. 3d 16, 22 (D.D.C. 2019) (rejecting the argument 15 that a lawsuit will divert substantial agency resources). It seems likely that the reality lies 16 somewhere in between the parties’ dueling representations on this point. The court has no doubt 17 that agency staff will need to be involved in responding to the pending motion, but just how much 18 of a burden that task will be vis-à-vis staff’s other duties remains unclear. 19 The court finds the PCFFA plaintiffs’ position persuasive in many respects. Federal 20 Defendants’ showing of harm in the absence of a stay is weak, and the extent to which the 21 proposed stay will end up conserving party or judicial resources remains unclear. Moreover, the 22 PCFFA plaintiffs are legitimately concerned that the present situation on the ground is dire for at 23 least some of the species of concern in this lawsuit. The court is equally concerned that, at least 24 insofar as the briefing on the motion to stay reveals what is actually happening on the ground, 25 Federal Defendants have not yet fully engaged in the serious task of determining how the projects 26 will be operated during any interim period if ESA-consultation is re-initiated. It is unclear from 27 the present record whether all parties are grappling with these issues with the kind of urgency 28 they appear to warrant. 1 All that having been said, September 30 is fast-approaching, and the court believes that 2 | the requested stay is likely to be at least somewhat beneficial for judicial and party efficiency. 3 | The court also concludes that the proposed stay will have little practical impact on the overall 4 | pace of this litigation. For all those reasons, the motions to stay both CNRA and PCFFA through 5 | September 30, 2021 are GRANTED. The parties shall file a joint status report on or before 6 | October 1, 2021, outlining their respective positions as to how these cases should proceed 7 | thereafter. Federal Defendants are put on notice that the court will expect a great deal more 8 | introspection in connection with future filings regarding the continued course of these actions. 9 | The court stands ready to dedicate its extremely scarce time and resources to these cases. All 10 | parties should be prepared to do the same. 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 2 Dated: _ August 19, 2021 J aL A 4 7 a 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28