Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Notice of Related Cases in COER v. Navy US Fed Court Case 2:19-cv-01062-JRC
Notice of Related Cases in COER v. Navy US Fed Court Case 2:19-cv-01062-JRC
Defendants.
Pursuant to LCR 3(g), plaintiffs Citizens of the Ebey’s Reserve for a Healthy, Safe and
Peaceful Environment and Paula Spina notify the Court that they are aware of two related cases,
as noted on their civil cover sheet (ECF No. 1-1) in the above-captioned matter.
The first related case is Citizens of the Ebey's Reserve for a Healthy, Safe and Peaceful
Environment; Robert Wilbur; and Maryon Attwood v. United States Department of the Navy, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01041-MJP, to which Judge Marsha J. Pechman has been assigned as presiding judge.
The second related case is State of Washington v. United States Department of the Navy et al.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01059-BJR, to which Judge Barbara J. Rothstein has been assigned as presiding
judge. The above-caption case and the two related cases noticed here concern substantially the
same event: the Navy’s decision to significantly increase its military aircraft operations at a Naval
The above-captioned case and State of Washington v. United States Department of the Navy
et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01059-BJR, are both challenges of the same final agency action: the
Navy’s Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G
“Growler” Airfield Operations at the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island complex.
Citizens of the Ebey's Reserve for a Healthy, Safe and Peaceful Environment; Robert
Wilbur; and Maryon Attwood v. United States Department of the Navy, Case No. 2:19-cv-01041-
MJP, is brought by the same nonprofit organization (COER) as the above-captioned case (and two
of COER’s directors) alleging under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, that the
Navy failed to make timely determinations and unlawfully withheld documents relating to the
Navy’s decision to significantly increase its military aircraft operations at a Naval Air Station on
Whidbey Island.
It appears to plaintiffs that there will, or may be, an unduly burdensome duplication of
labor and expense or the potential for conflicting results if these three cases are conducted before
different judges.
Respectfully submitted,