In The United States District Court For The District of Columbia
Uploaded by
audreystrebIn The United States District Court For The District of Columbia
Uploaded by
audreystrebCase 1:25-cv-00906-TSC Document 17 Filed 08/29/25 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TOWN AND COUNTY OF
NANTUCKET,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00906-TSC
v.
DOUG BURGUM, et al.,
Defendants.
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DEFER THE DEADLINE
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Federal Defendants respectfully move to defer Defendants’ deadline to respond to
Plaintiff’s Complaint. Good cause exists for granting the motion because, as further explained
below, the U.S. Department of the Interior intends to move for a voluntary remand of the agency
action at issue in this litigation and to stay the case pending the remand. Federal Defendants
intend to file that motion no later than September 18. Federal Defendants therefore request that
the Court defer Federal Defendants’ responsive pleading deadline until twenty-one days after the
Court rules on Federal Defendants’ forthcoming remand motion or, if the Court grants the
remand and enters a stay, twenty-one days after the stay is lifted.
1. Plaintiff brought this action on March 27, 2025, challenging Interior’s approvals
associated with the SouthCoast Wind Project (“Project”). See Dkt. No. 1. In particular, Plaintiff
challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the National Historic
Preservation Act (“NHPA”) Interior’s December 2024 Record of Decision, which explained
Interior’s action to approve with conditions the Project’s construction and operations plan
Case 1:25-cv-00906-TSC Document 17 Filed 08/29/25 Page 2 of 3
(“COP”). Plaintiff’s complaint arises under the Administrative Procedure Act’s cause of action
for challenging final agency action—here, the COP approval. Compl. ¶¶ 40-65.
2. On May 28, 2025, this Court granted Federal Defendants’ unopposed motion for
an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint until September 5, 2025. May 28, 2025
Minute Order.
3. A further deferral of Federal Defendants’ responsive pleading deadline in this
case is needed because Interior intends to reconsider its COP approval and will therefore be
moving for a voluntary remand of that agency action by September 18, 2025. See, e.g., Util.
Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 901 F.3d 414, 436 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (recognizing that
administrative agencies have the authority to reconsider their decisions).
4. The outcome of Interior’s reconsideration has the potential to affect the Plaintiff’s
claims in this case. Interior’s COP approval is the final agency action at the root of Plaintiff’s
claims. Any new decision would be a new final agency action under the APA. With that
possibility, litigating the propriety of the current final agency action in the interim makes little
sense. Thus, in order to conserve judicial resources, Federal Defendants will also seek a stay of
proceedings in this Court, at least until the Court has had the opportunity to rule on the remand
motion. Similarly, continuing to litigate this case before any decision is made on the motion for
remand and stay would potentially waste considerable time and resources for both the parties and
the Court. By contrast, the requested extension would allow the Court adequate time to consider
the forthcoming motion for remand and stay and not prejudice the other parties because, should
the motion for remand and stay be denied, Federal Defendants would then file their response to
the complaint.
2
Case 1:25-cv-00906-TSC Document 17 Filed 08/29/25 Page 3 of 3
5. Federal Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court defer the
responsive pleading deadline until twenty-one days after either (i) the Court rules on Defendants’
motion for voluntary remand or, (ii) if the Court grants a stay, until twenty-one days after the
stay is lifted.
6. This is Federal Defendants’ second extension request, and there are no other
currently pending deadlines in this action that the requested extension would affect.
7. The parties have conferred concerning this motion. Counsel for Plaintiff advised
that Plaintiff does not oppose. Counsel for Defendant-Intervenor advised that Defendant-
Intervenor opposes this motion and intends to oppose Federal Defendants’ forthcoming motion
for voluntary remand and stay.
For the reasons stated above, and in the interest of judicial efficiency, there is good cause
to defer Federal Defendants’ responsive pleading deadline until twenty-one days after the Court
rules on the remand motion or, if the Court issues a stay, twenty-one days after the stay is lifted.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of August, 2025.
ADAM R.F. GUSTAFSON
Acting Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Angela N. Ellis
ANGELA N. ELLIS
Trial Attorney
Natural Resources Section
Environment & Natural Resources Division
United States Department of Justice
Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611
Washington, DC 20044-7611
(202) 305-0456
angela.ellis@usdoj.gov
