Donor Network West v. Kennedy

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 18 DONOR NETWORK WEST, Case No. 3:25-cv-00140 Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official 21 capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, STEPHANIE CARLTON, in her 22 official capacity as Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 23 Services, UNITED STATES ORDER GRANTING DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 24 HUMAN SERVICES, CENTERS FOR JOINT MOTION MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, 25 TO ESTABLISH Defendants. BRIEFING 26 27 RENOWN HEALTH, Intervenor. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b) and Local Rule 7-2, Plaintiff, Defendants, 2|| and Intervenor in this matter jointly move to establish a briefing schedule as described below. 3 1. On December 19, 2024, Defendants issued a final decision approving Renown’s 4 request for a waiver to work with an organ procurement organization outside the designated service ° area served by Plaintiff Donor Network West. See 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-8(a)(2)(A); 42 □□□□ § 486.308(e). g 2. On March 7, 2025, Donor Network West filed this action under the Administrative g|| Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, asking this Court to vacate the waiver decision as invalid or enjoin implementation and/or enforcement of the waiver decision. Shortly thereafter, Donor Network West moved for preliminary relief. 12 3. On March 24, 2025, this Court granted Renown Health’s motion to intervene. 4. On March 31, 2025, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion for preliminary relief.

15 5. Because review of final agency action under the APA is generally limited to the 16|| administrative record, the parties agree that the merits of this case should be decided on cross- 17|| motions for summary judgment. “Courts routinely resolve APA challenges to an agency’s administrative decision by summary judgment.” Path Am. KingCo LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland 19 Sec., 426 F. Supp. 3d 770, 775 (W.D. Wash. 2019); see, e.g., Friends of Animals v. Silvey, 353 F. Supp. 3d 991 (D. Nev. 2018), aff'd, 820 F. App’x 513 (9th Cir. 2020). 6. The parties therefore respectfully request that the Court establish the following, 3 agreed-upon schedule for summary judgment briefing: 24 ° Defendants will file the certified index to the public record and produce any administrative record materials that are not available on the public rulemaking docket 25 by May 27, 2025. 26 ° Plaintiff will file its motion for summary judgment by June 26, 2025, not to exceed 7 30 pages. 28

1 ° Defendants will file a combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's motion by August 25, 2025, not to exceed 30 pages. 2 ° Intervenor will file a combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition 3 to Plaintiff's motion by August 25, 2025, not to exceed 30 pages. 4 ° Plaintiff will file a combined reply in support of its motion and opposition to defendants’ and intervenor’s cross-motions by September 24, 2025, not to exceed 20 5 pages. 6 ° The parties will file a jot appendix containing record materials cited in their 7 respective briefs by October 1, 2025. 8 7. The parties agree that this schedule will be without prejudice to Defendants seeking 9 leave to file a reply should Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion raise new arguments 10 or other materials that warrant a response. 1] D 8. The parties respectfully request that Defendants’ and Intervenor’s deadline to 13|| respond to Plaintiff's complaint be stayed pending the Court’s ruling on the parties’ cross-motions 14|| for summary judgment. 15 9. There is good cause to grant the relief requested because the parties’ joint proposal 16 would conserve both the Court’s and the parties’ resources by consolidating all of the issues into a 17 single round of briefing. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. jlosed Jd 21 Aro Voured Jom Anne R. Traum 22 United States District Judge 23 DATED: May 5, 2025 24 25 26 27 28