I thought I would chime in with my 4 cents worth on both the subject of Oral Arguments and the upcoming hearing:

***************************

1. Oral Arguments

To my knowledge, LAC was the only party to file a request for Oral Argument (see link below):

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.148512/gov.uscourts.nvd.148512.271.0_1.pdf

That filing was specific to a response to Bartell Ranch, LLC and Edward Bartell as Plaintiffs.

I am not a lawyer, but, since LAC did not request an Oral Argument with regards to the ENGOs' filing, than any Oral Argument may be limited in scope to the Bartells in regards to that specific reply since that was the only filing requesting an oral argument. 

That said, it is my understanding that the Judge, at her own discretion, may request Oral Argument on any issues:

"Rule 3.12.  Oral argument.

(a) No oral argument unless ordered.  Decisions will be rendered without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the court. The court may require oral argument on its own initiative or upon motion of a party."

Here is the link:

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/FirstDCR.html

***************************

2. Hearing on Pending Motions

The Minute orders filed specifically referenced the January 5th hearing as a "Hearing on Pending Motions". 

There are multiple motions on both sides (primarily related to Summary Judgement requests and related items by both sides).

Outside of the Oral Argument on Bartell, the upcoming hearing will likely have questions that Judge Du (and her Staff Attorney) has outstanding from her Bench Order (which the Staff Attorney likely pulled together with Judge Du's review prior to announcing the January 5th hearing). 

The Bench Order will then likely be amended and then turned into a final ruling.

The court does not specifically say "oral argument" in the minute order which may or may not mean that Judge Du will necessarily open the hearing to an oral presentation by the attorneys and may alternatively limit it to her own line of questions about the cases (particularly as it relates to the Bench Order).

I understand there are a few possible outcomes:

#1. The BLM's RoD could be vacated (which is constructively is a permanent injunction).  In which the BLM would be left with the options of starting work on a new RoD, requesting a rehearing and/or appealing the court's decision. 

#2. The BLM's RoD could be remanded but not vacated and have a temporary injunction in which case the BLM would cure any deficiencies but LAC would be halted from doing any construction work on TP.

#3. The BLM's RoD could be remanded by not vacated and have no injunction (allowing for LAC to proceed subject to remedying any deficiencies)

#4. The BLM's RoD is affirmed

It is my understanding, at that point, either party can file within 60 days (since the federal government is a party) for an appeal at the US Courts for the Ninth Circuit:

www.ca9.uscourts.gov/general/faq/

If the Plaintiffs file the appeal (i.e., Judge Du affirmed the RoD), it is unlikely that the Plaintiffs would be able to receive any injunction on TP and the appellate process may be ultimately moot (from a cost, time, and constructive perspective). 

If Defendants file the appeal (which they would only likely do in the event of case #1 above) and an appeal is approved to be heard (which is a decent probability it would be), it would go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit before a panel of judges (e.g., 3 judges). 

If accepted, How long does it take from the time of the notice of appeal until oral argument?

How long does it take from time of argument to the time of decision?

The Court has no time limit, but typically takes 3 months to a year.

Based on the data from the website's FAQ above, an appeal would most like take between 17 to 34 months to be resolved (assuming the party who filed the notice appeal 60 days after Judge Du's decision). 

At that point the outcomes of the appeal could be many fold (e.g., remanding, reversing, denial).  If denied, then the BLM/LAc could request a rehearing, but that would likely be denied.

It is unclear to me whether there would be anything (from a legal or regulatory perspective) that would prohibit the BLM from also pursuing a new RoD in parallel with the appellate process.

Would love any thoughts on this from any one who has researched these issues?

IRR