IRR, 

I know I'm not the "you" that you were directing this at, but for what it's worth:

"So I ask you.  Why would she ask both parties to prepare relief statements ONLY for the event of her remanding the case back to the BLM?  (I can certainly understand preparing for both outcomes or neither, but to select one side, implies a bias for that outcome)."

Judge Du's language in her recent filings has indicated that she is fed up with delaying tactics and excess paperwork from both sides. She could certainly be heading off another potential stalling tactic by making sure she's told everyone they need to be ready ahead of time. As far as being prepared for both outcomes, I don't follow your logic. There is no need to prepare statements about what needs to be done to fix the problem if she rules that there is no problem (meaning no need to remand back to the BLM). So she's asked them to be prepared ahead of time for the potential outcome that would require deciding what the next step should be. Since there is no next step as far as permitting or the case if she rules in BLM's favor there is nothing anyone needs to prepare.. She has made sure everyone is ready for either outcome, just as you suggested she should do in order to not show bias.

Also, I don't read so much into her ruling leanings in the most recent filing as you are concerned about it showing. She didn't say anything at all to the tune of 'the court believes that this case is controlling', she basically replied to the environmental group's filings where they indicate it should be controlling by asking for further clarification from both sides. Definitely seems she has identified that subject as potentially the most critical to the overall case, but I don't think it shows her hand one way or the other, just where she's expecting to spend the most time during the hearing.

Best Regards,

Ganan