Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. Export-Import Bank of the United States

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedSeptember 17, 2013
DocketCivil Action No. 2013-1820
StatusPublished

This text of Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. Export-Import Bank of the United States (Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. Export-Import Bank of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. Export-Import Bank of the United States, (D.D.C. 2013).

Opinion

1 Last Revised October 16, 2012.

2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO For the Northern District of California

11 ORDER SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE United States District Court

IN CIVIL CASES BEFORE JUDGE WILLIAM ALSUP 12 13 14 INTRODUCTION 15 The purpose of this supplemental order is to guide the parties on recurring practical 16 questions that arise prior to trial and to impose certain requirements for the conduct of the 17 case. Counsel must please read this order and follow it. 18 SERVICE OF THIS ORDER 19 1. For cases originating in this Court, plaintiff(s) must serve this order and the order 20 setting the initial case management conference (along with any other required pleadings) on each 21 defendant. For cases removed from state court, the removing defendant(s) must serve this order 22 and the order setting the initial case management conference (along with any other required 23 pleadings) immediately on each and every party that has previously appeared or that appears 24 within thirty days after removal. Thereafter, any existing party to the action that brings a new 25 party into the action must immediately serve a copy of this order and the order setting the initial 26 case management conference (along with any other required pleadings) on the new party. 27 28 1 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 2 2. The parties will please address the standardized items in the court-wide format 3 for the joint case management statement. This is available at the Standing Order For all Judges 4 of the Northern District of California — Contents of Joint Case Management Statements. 5 Please file (electronically or manually depending on your case) at least SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS 6 prior to the case management conference. 7 3. Each party shall be represented at the case management conference by counsel 8 prepared to address all such matters and with authority to enter stipulations and to make 9 admissions. 10 4. Pursuant to FRCP 26(d), no formal discovery shall be initiated by any party until For the Northern District of California

11 after the meet-and-confer session required by FRCP 26(f), except by stipulation or prior court United States District Court

12 order. As soon as a party has notice of this order, however, the party shall take such affirmative 13 steps as are necessary to preserve evidence related to the issues presented by the action, 14 including, without limitation, interdiction of any document-destruction programs and any 15 ongoing erasures of e-mails, voice mails, and other electronically-recorded material. 16 ELECTRONIC CASE FILING — LODGING HARD COPIES WITH CHAMBERS 17 5. In all “E-Filing” cases, in addition to filing papers electronically, the parties are 18 required to lodge for chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed electronically. 19 These printed copies shall be marked “Chambers Copy — Do Not File” and shall be in an 20 envelop clearly marked with the judge’s name and case number. It shall be delivered in 21 accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(7). For the final pretrial conference, please follow 22 Guidelines for Trial and Final Pretrial Conference In Civil Jury Cases Before the Honorable 23 William Alsup. 24 SETTING MOTIONS FOR HEARING 25 6. Counsel need not request a motion hearing date and may notice non-discovery 26 motions for any Thursday (excepting holidays) at 8:00 a.m. The Court sometimes rules on the 27 papers, issuing a written order and vacating the hearing. If a written request for oral argument is 28 filed before a ruling, stating that a lawyer of four or fewer years out of law school will conduct

2 1 the oral argument or at least the lion’s share, then the Court will hear oral argument, believing 2 that young lawyers need more opportunities for appearances than they usually receive. 3 FORM OF SUBMISSIONS 4 7. On summary judgment motions, joint statements of undisputed facts are not 5 required but are helpful if completely agreed upon. Please do not file separate statements of 6 “undisputed facts.” 7 8. Reply declarations are disfavored. Opening declarations should set forth all facts 8 on points foreseeably relevant to the relief sought. Reply papers should not raise new points that 9 could have been addressed in the opening. 10 9. The title of the submission must be sufficient to alert the Court to the relief For the Northern District of California

11 sought; for example, please do not bury a request for continuance in the body of a memorandum. United States District Court

12 10. All submissions filed with the Court shall include on the cover sheet the date and 13 time of the hearing or conference. Counsel should include their facsimile transmission numbers 14 along with their telephone numbers on their papers. 15 DISCOVERY 16 11. The following paragraphs on discovery provide counsel and the parties with 17 views and guidelines of Judge Alsup so that they can plan accordingly. For good cause, the 18 parties are invited to propose any modifications in their joint case management conference 19 statement. Unless and until modified, however, the following provisions shall supplement the 20 requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules. 21 12. In responding to requests for documents and materials under FRCP 34, all parties 22 shall affirmatively state in a written response the full extent to which they will produce materials 23 and shall, promptly after the production, confirm in writing that they have produced all such 24 materials so described that are locatable after a diligent search of all locations at which such 25 materials might plausibly exist. It is not sufficient to state that “responsive” materials will be or 26 have been produced. Such a response leaves open the distinct possibility that other responsive 27 materials have not been produced. 28

3 1 13. In searching for responsive materials in connection with FRCP 34 requests or for 2 materials required to be disclosed under FRCP 26(a)(1), parties must search computerized files, 3 e-mails, voice mails, work files, desk files, calendars and diaries, and any other locations and 4 sources if materials of the type to be produced might plausibly be expected to be found there. 5 The Court has found that certain basic information normally learned by counsel anyway should 6 be made available to the other side at the time of production, as if it were a response to a 7 standing interrogatory, as follows. At the time of the production, the responding party should 8 provide a written list to the requesting party setting forth in detail each specific source and 9 location searched. The list must also identify, by name and position, all persons conducting the 10 search and their areas of search responsibility. The producing party shall also provide a list For the Northern District of California

11 describing the specific source for each produced item as well as for each item withheld on a United States District Court

12 ground of privilege, using the unique identifying numbers to specify documents or ranges. 13 Materials produced in discovery should bear unique identifying control numbers on each page. 14 14.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. Export-Import Bank of the United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesapeake-climate-action-network-v-export-import-bank-of-the-united-dcd-2013.