Border Power Plant Working Group v. Department of Energy

Good Law
260 F. Supp. 2d 997·2003 WL 21037927·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9333
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 2, 20033:02-cr-00513California15,335 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gonzalez, J.

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATIONS; (4) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ ORAL MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD; (5) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; and (6) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR THE REMEDY PHASE OF THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Presently before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgement, federal defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs declarations, defendants’ oral nfotion to supplement the record, and plaintiff Border Power Plant Working Group’s motion to strike amicus Termoeléctrica U.S.’s request for judicial notice and supplemental declaration. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies in part and grants in part both motions for summary judgment, denies federal defendants’ motions to strike and to supplement the record, and grants plaintiffs motion to strike.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

This case involves two applications for Presidential Permits and federal rights-of-way to build…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.