|
CMRR Nuclear Facility
Litigation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
(all documents are in pdf - updated 04/06/14)
Case 6:11-cv-00946, Federal District Court of New Mexico
THE LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY; THE HONORABLE STEVEN
CHU, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY; THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; THE
HONORABLE THOMAS P. D’AGOSTINO,
ADMINISTRATOR,
Defendants.
- CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11−cv−00946−JB−LAM
- (Doc 35) STIPULATION of Dismissal by Los Alamos Study Group (Hnasko, Thomas) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
- (Doc 34) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Lourdes A. Martinez as the pretrial judge. Under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 10.1, the first page of each document must have the case file number and initials of the assigned judges. Accordingly, further documents filed in this matter must bear the case number and the judges' initials shown in the case caption and the NEF for this document. Kindly reflect this change in your filings. Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia no longer assigned to this case. [THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (id) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
- (Doc 33) MINUTE ORDER, pursuant to the direction of District Judge James O. Browning, alerting the parties that the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 13: Finance and Budget, Chapter 2: Budget, describe Court Operations Under a Lapse in Appropriation. Section 220.30.15 describes Article III Judges and Their Staffs, and states: "Apart from pre-existing criteria such as the Speedy Trial Act, no distinctions or priorities should be drawn between criminal and civil cases." Accordingly, the Temporary Administrative Order Relating to Civil Cases Involving the United States, filed October 1, 2013, No. MC 13-40-02 may not be appropriate in all cases, including this one. The Court will not, however, vacate the order in this case at this time, or, on its own lift the stay or continue the case on the scheduling track in place before the entry of the Administrative Order. The Court desires, however, to also be fair to the non-United States parties. Some cases, including this one, may deserve a stay, and some may not, particularly so early in the phase-down. The Court will allow a more nuanced, individualized response in its cases if the non-United States party prefers one. If the non-United States party does not agree a stay is appropriate in the case, the non-United States party simply needs to send the Court a letter asking the stay to be lifted and the stay will be lifted. If the United States then still wants or needs a stay in this particular case, it will need to move in this case for one. The Court will, however, be sympathetic to requests for continuances and other motions necessitated by phase-down activities in the executive branch, and appreciates that the Acting United States Attorney may need to instruct his staff to limit appearances to those cases essential to the protection of life or property. THIS IS A TEXT ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.(kw) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
- (Doc 32) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been reassigned to District Judge James O. Browning as the trial judge. District Judge John E. Conway no longer assigned to this case. [THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (stw) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
- ORDER (Doc 31) by District Judge Judith C. Herrera for Senior District Judge John E. Conway DENYING (Doc 26) Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. (jrm) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
- (Doc 30) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia as the pretrial judge. [THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (ln) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
- (Doc 29) APPENDIX/SUPPLEMENT re 26 MOTION for Supplement of the Administrative Record by Steven Chu, Thomas Paul D'Agostino, National Nuclear Security Administration, United States Department of Energy (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Tenth Circuit August 27, 2012 Opinion)(Smith, Andrew) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
- REPLY to Response to Motion re 26 MOTION for Supplement of the Administrative Record filed by Los Alamos Study Group. (Doc 28) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
- RESPONSE in Opposition re 26 MOTION for Supplement of the Administrative Record filed by Steven Chu, Thomas Paul D'Agostino, National Nuclear Security Administration, United States Department of Energy. (Tustin, John), Jul 30, 2012, (pdf)(Entered: 07/30/2012)
- MOTION to Supplement the Administrative Record by Los Alamos Study Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hnasko, Thomas) (pdf)(Entered: 07/13/2012)
- NOTICE by Steven Chu, Thomas Paul D'Agostino, National Nuclear Security Administration, United States Department of Energy of Lodging Administrative Record (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B - The Study Group will make this exhibit available at a future date)(Tustin, John) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
- ORDER by Magistrate Judge W. Daniel Schneider granting 20 Motion to Vacate. [THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (mm) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
- ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES UNDER RULE 26(F) AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SCHEDULING ORDER UNDER RULE 16, Doc 22, (103KB) Jan 30, 2012
- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES UNDER RULE 26(f)(1) AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SCHEDULING ORDER UNDER RULE 16 rECF NO. 141, Doc 21, (343KB) Jan 23, 2012
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE OR AMEND INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER [ECF NO. 18), Doc 20, (1MB) Jan 13, 2012
- NOTICE REGARDING DOCUMENT ENTRIES: Because this case has been reassigned to a district judge, please be advised that any documents filed by the parties under Rule 73(b) have been permanently removed from the docket. Document(s) removed: Nos. 9 and 11. [THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] Doc 19, Jan 10, 2012
- INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER, Doc 18 (23KB) Jan 10, 2012
- ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Steven Chu, Thomas Paul D'Agostino, National Nuclear Security Administration, United States Department of Energy. Related document: 1 Complaint,.(Tustin, John) Doc 17, (114KB) Jan 9, 2012
- RESPONSE in Opposition re 14 MOTION and Request for a Conference of the Parties Under Rule 26(F) and for the Issuance of a Scheduling Order Under Rule 16 filed by Steven Chu, Thomas Paul D'Agostino, National Nuclear Security Administration, United States Department of Energy. (Tustin, John) Doc 16, (51KB) Jan 6, 2012
- ORDER by Magistrate Judge W. Daniel Schneider granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer All Defendants. [TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] Dec 28, 2011
- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES UNDER RULE 26(F) AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SCHEDULING ORDER UNDER RULE 16, Doc 14, (390KB) Dec 23, 2011
- Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, Doc 13, (30KB) Dec 20, 2011
- MINUTE ORDER by Matthew J. Dykman, Clerk of Court, reassigning case to District Judge John E. Conway. Magistrate Judge Robert Hayes Scott is no longer assigned to case, Doc 12, (16KB) Dec 2, 2011
- REFUSAL TO CONSENT to Proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, Doc 11,. (TEXT-ONLY ENTRY) Dec 1, 2011
- SUMMONS Returned Executed by Los Alamos Study Group. All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F) Doc 10, Nov 30, 2011
- CONSENT TO PROCEED Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(b), Los Alamos Study Group voluntarily consents to have United States Magistrate Judge Robert Hayes Scott conduct dispositive proceedings in this matter, including motions and trial, and order the entry of final judgment, Doc 9, (TEXT-ONLY ENTRY) Nov 30, 2011
- ORDER DENYING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASE, Doc 8, (13KB) Nov 28, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASE, Doc 7, (17KB) Nov 18, 2011
- Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' "Unopposed" Motion to Transfer Related Case, Doc 6, (116KB) Nov 17, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASE, Doc 5, (42KB) Nov 10, 2011
- NOTICE of Appearance by John Tustin on behalf of All Defendants (Tustin, John) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
- Summons Issued as to United States Department of Energy, Steven Chu, The National Nuclear Security Administration, Thomas Paul D'Agostino. Oct 24, 2011
- Office code correction. Case office code has been changed from 6 (Santa Fe) to 1 (Albuquerque). Oct 24, 2011
- Filing fee: $ 350.00, receipt # SF001613 re 1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 against All Defendants filed by Los Alamos Study Group. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hnasko, Thomas) [TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] Oct 21, 2011
- This case has been randomly assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Hayes Scott to conduct dispositive proceedings in this matter, including motions and trial. Appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge will be to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. It is the responsibility of the case filer to serve a copy of this Notice upon all parties with the summons and complaint. Consent is strictly voluntary, and a party is free to withhold consent without adverse consequences. Should a party choose to consent, notice should be made no later than 21 days after entry of the Order setting the Rule 16 Initial Scheduling Conference. [TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] Oct 21, 2011
- Magistrate Judge Robert Hayes Scott and Magistrate Judge W. Daniel Schneider assigned, Oct 21, 2011
- COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969, (300KB) Oct 21, 2011
Case 11-2141,
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY;
STEVEN CHU, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Energy;
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION;
THOMAS PAUL D’AGOSTINO, in his official capacity as Administrator,
National Nuclear Security Administration,
Defendants-Appellees.
- OPINION OF THE COURT, Chief Judge BRISCOE, and Circuit Judges McKAY and HARTZ, Aug 27, 2012 (Judgment).
- PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT BELOW, AND TO REMAND PURSUANT TO TENTH CIRCUIT RULE 27.2(A)(1), Mar 29, 2012
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, VACATE JUDGMENT BELOW, AND REMAND PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 27.2(A)(1), Mar 19, 2012
- Calendar notice sent to counsel. Arguments to be held on 05/09/2012 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom I, Byron White United States Courthouse, Denver, CO.
- ORDER – This matter is before the court on Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion to Supplement the
Record, to Vacate the Judgment Below, and to Remand Pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule
27.2(A)(1). On or before March 19, 2012, the Appellees are directed to file a response to
appellant’s motion, (73KB) Mar 7, 2012.
- PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT BELOW, AND TO REMAND PURSUANT TO TENTH CIRCUIT RULE 27.2(A)(1), (201KB) Mar 6, 2012 (Attachment 48KB)
- APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF, (183KB) Jan 9, 2012
- Minute order filed - Appellant's optional reply brief now due 01/09/2012 for Los Alamos Study Group. (Text Only - No Attachment)
- RESPONSE BRIEF OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, (186KB) Dec 22, 2011
- Federal Defendants-Appellees’ reply in support of their motion for summary disposition because of mootness is referred to the merits panel (14KB) Dec 6, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION BECAUSE OF MOOTNESS, (38KB) Dec 5, 2011
- Judge's order referring Motion for Summary Disposition to panel of judges to consider the merits of this appeal, (49KB), Nov 29, 2011
- PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION BECAUSE OF MOOTNESS, (97KB) Nov 23, 2011
- Order setting requirement of date when appellant shall file a response to the appellees’ motion, (48KB) Nov 2, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION BECAUSE OF MOOTNESS, (51KB) Nov 1, 2011
- Order granting extension, (27KB) Sep 16, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWERING BRIEF, (22KB) Sep 16, 2011
- Appellant's Opening Brief, (285KB) Aug 31, 2011
- Exhibits (1MB)
- Appendix
- Index (429KB)
- Vol 1, pgs 1-161 (5.9MB)
- Vol 1, pgs 162-281 (4.5MB)
- Vol 2, pgs 282-336 (1.8MB)
- Vol 2, pgs 337-457 (3MB)
- Vol 2, pgs 458-561 (2.7MB)
- Vol 3, pgs 562-720 (12.9MB)
- Vol 4, pgs 721-880 (10.6MB)
- Vol 4, pgs 881-1007 (6.9MB)
- Vol 4, pgs 1008-1180 (8.6MB)
- Vol 5, pgs 1181-1352 (7.2MB)
- Vol 5, pgs 1353-1531 (7.6MB)
- Vol 6, pgs 1532-1744 (17.2MB)
- Docketing Statement, (54KB) Jul 21, 2011
- Notice of Appeal, (34KB) Jul 1, 2011
Case 1:10-cv-00760-JCH-ACT, Federal District Court of New Mexico
LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; THE HONORABLE STEPHEN CHU, in his capacity as SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; THE HONORABLE THOMAS PAUL D’AGOSTINO, in his capacity as ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
- [Please find all associated filings pertaining to the appeal in this case, #11-2141, in the section above.]
- U.S. District Judge Judith C. Herrera DENIES Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Transfer Related Case, Doc 74, (21KB) Nov 30, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASE, Doc 73, (14KB) Nov 10, 2011
- U.S. District Judge Judith C. Herrera's MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, Doc 72, (30KB) Oct 28, 2011
- Plaintiff's Reply on Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal, Doc 69, (173KB) Aug 25, 2011
- Federal Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal, Doc 66, (662KB) Aug 8, 2011 Exhibit A, Exhibit B
- Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal, Doc 64, (201KB) Jul 21, 2011
- Notice of Appeal, Doc 59, Jul 1, 2011 (34KB)
- Transcript of proceedings (objections & preliminary injunction) held on May 2, 2011, before Judge Herrera, Doc 58, (6.6MB)
- Transcript of proceedings (objections & preliminary injunction) held on Apr 27, 2011, before Judge Herrera, Doc 57, (281KB)
- U.S. District Judge Judith C. Herrera's FINAL JUDGMENT, (20KB) Doc 56, May 23, 2011
- U.S. District Judge Judith C. Herrera's MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, (68KB) Doc 55, May 23, 2011
- Clerk's Minutes, CASE NO. CIV10-760 JH/ACT, Doc 54, May 2, 2011
- CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING (Doc 53) on Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition & Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support on MON, MAY 2, 2011, 9 am, before The Honorable Judith C. Herrera
- Gregory Mello, prepared testimony, (references, pdf 27MB), Apr 27, 2011
- Frank von Hippel, prepared testimony, (references), Apr 27, 2011
- Clerk's Minutes, CASE NO. CIV10-760 JH/ACT, Doc 52, Apr 27, 2011
- MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PARTICIPATE IN A CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES UNDER RULE 26(f)(1) AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SCHEDULING ORDER UNDER RULE 16 (pdf 19KB) Doc 51, Apr 8, 2011
- MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THREE-PAGE SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY ON MOTION OF COMPEL (pdf 16KB) Doc 50, Apr 8, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THREE-PAGE SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S REPLY ON MOTION TO COMPEL (pdf 14KB) Doc 49, Apr 7, 2011
- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PARTICIPATE IN A CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES UNDER RULE 26(f)(1) AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SCHEDULING ORDER UNDER RULE 16 (pdf 629KB) Doc 48, Apr 4, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER, Doc 47, Mar 28, 2011
- PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PARTICIPATE IN A CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES UNDER RULE 26(f)(1) AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SCHEDULING ORDER UNDER RULE 16, (168KB) Doc 46, Mar 11, 2011
- Hearing on Objections and Motion for Preliminary Injunction is RESET for WED, APR 27, 2011 at 09 A.M. 1/2 day is allotted for this hearing. (Entered: 03/01/2011)
- NOTICE OF HEARING, (17KB) TUES, MAR 15, 2011 AT 9 A.M. before The Honorable Judith C. Herrera, U.S. District Judge, U.S. Courthouse, 333 Lomas Boulevard N.W., “Brazos” Courtroom, Albuquerque, NM, (Doc 41, filed Feb 24, 2011)
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF BRIEFING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JANUARY 6, 2011 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, (12KB) Doc 40, Feb 9, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S JANUARY 20, 2011 OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, (73KB) Doc 39, Feb 7, 2011
- PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, (64KB) Doc 38, Feb 7, 2011
- ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS CITED IN AFFIDAVIT, (19KB) Doc, 37, Feb 3, 2011
- PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS CITED IN AFFIDAVIT, (107KB) Doc 36, Jan 28, 2011
- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS, (293KB) Doc 34, Jan 26, 2011
- PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, (825KB) Doc 33, Jan 20, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, (17KB) Doc 32, Jan 20, 2011
- FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JANUARY 14, 2011 “MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS," (38KB) Doc 31, Jan 18, 2011
- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (5.9MB) Doc 30, Jan 14, 2011
- STIPULATED EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR EXHIBITS TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (70KB) Doc 29, Jan 14, 2011
- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS, (113KB) Doc 28, Jan 14, 2011
- MAGISTRATE JUDGES'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, (587KB) Doc 25, Jan 6, 2011
- DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (1.7MB) Doc 23, Dec 20, 2010
- DEFENDANTS' REPLY to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time, (445KB) Doc 22, Dec 10, 2010
- PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE and Request for Modification of Order Granting Federal Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time within which to Respond to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (MPI), (435KB) Doc 21, Dec 8, 2010
- JUDGE'S ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion to Extend Period of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's MPI, (37KB) Doc 20, Dec 7, 2010
- DEFENDANTS' MOTION to Extend Period of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (310KB) Doc 19, Dec 3, 2010
- PLAINTIFF'S LETTER to Defendants re: erroneous statements (119KB) Nov 24, 2010
- JUDGE'S ORDER Granting Motion to File Materials (42KB) Doc 17, Nov 23, 2010
- PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION to File Materials (818KB) Doc 16, Nov 22, 2010
- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support (1.4MB) Doc 13, Nov 12, 2010
- DEFENDANTS' REPLY to Response to Motion to Dismiss (56KB) Doc 11, Nov 8, 2010
- PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE to Motion to Dismiss (1MB) Doc 10, Oct 21, 2010
- DEFENDANTS' MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Brief in Support (98KB) Doc 9, Oct 4, 2010
- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief under the NEPA of 1969 against Steven Chu, DOE, and Thomas Paul D'Agostino, NNSA (1.5MB) Doc 1, Aug 16, 2010
- DOE/NNSA'S REPLY to LASG's letter (46KB) Jul 30, 2010
- LETTER from LASG to Steven Chu, DOE and Thomas Paul D'Agostino, NNSA (1.5MB) Jul 1, 2010
|
Follow us 