GULF RESTORATION NETWORK v. CITY OF HATTIESBURG

Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-36-KS-JCG.

GULF RESTORATION NETWORK, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HATTIESBURG, Defendant.

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 33 U.S.C. § 1319
Cause: 33 U.S.C. § 1319 Clean Water Act
Nature of Suit: 893 Environmental Matters
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Gulf Restoration Network, Plaintiff, represented by Cynthia M. Sarthou , GULF RESTORATION NETWORK.

Gulf Restoration Network, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Babich , TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC, pro hac vice, Corinne Van Dalen , TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC, pro hac vice & Lisa W. Jordan , TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC, pro hac vice.

City of Hattiesburg, Defendant, represented by Keith W. Turner , WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC, Laura W. McCarthy , WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC & Louis B. Lanoux , WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC.

U.S. Department of Justice, Interested Party, represented by Frederick H. Turner , U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality, Intervenor, represented by Christopher G. Wells , MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & Donna J. Hodges , MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.


ORDER

KEITH STARRETT, District Judge.

The Court grants Defendant's Motion [160] for leave to conduct depositions of EPA officials and to serve additional discovery on Plaintiff. The Court hereby extends the discovery period in this matter to July 31, 2017. Both parties may depose up to three employees of the EPA, but the depositions must occur on or before July 31, 2017. Both parties may also serve additional discovery requests upon the opposing party, but such discovery requests must be served on or before July 17, 2017. Responses to these additional discovery requests must be provided on or before July 21, 2017. To the extent any information gleaned during this extended discovery period alters or supplements the opinions of any party's experts, supplemental expert reports must be produced to opposing party on or before July 31, 2017.

The Court considered Plaintiff's objections to any extension of the discovery deadlines, but the Court believes that any information provided by the EPA is important to ensure a just disposition of this matter. The Court further notes that the production of emails between Plaintiff's counsel and EPA officials two days before the discovery deadline left virtually no time for Defendant to investigate the matter. The Court does not imply any wrongdoing on the part of counsel; to the contrary, Plaintiff's counsel only received the emails two days before they were produced. But the EPA's opinion on these matters is too important to leave unexplored, and both parties shall have the opportunity to do so.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases