Court's Response to Defendants Request for Extra Time
In the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Robson Bonnichsen, C. Loring Brace,
George W. Gill, C. Vance Haynes, Richard L. Jantz,
Douglas W. Owsley, Dennis J. Stanford,
and D. Gentry Steele
Plaintiffs
v.
United States of America Department of the Army,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, United States Department,
of the Interior, Bartholomew B. Bohn II, Donald R. Curtis,
and Lee Turner
Defendants
Order CV 96-1481-JE
JELDERKS, Magistrate Judge:
In an order filed on September 21, 1999, I required defendants
to respond no later than March 24, 2000, to the Bonnichsen plaintiffs'
request to study the skeletal remains of an individual often
referred to as the "Kennewick Man." In setting that
deadline, I allocated waht seemed to be sufficient time to complete
any DNA testing that defendats deemed appropriate.
In order to carry out DNA analysis, defendants now seek a
six-month extension on the time in which to respond to the Bonnichsen
plaintiffs' request to study the skeletal remains. The Bonnichsen
plaintiffs are understandably frustrated and opposed to further
delay. They correctly note that they had asked that DNA testing
be performed in a motion filed nearly three years ago, and that
defendents have offered no compelling reasons for deciding to
perform that analysis only at this late date. The Tribes appearing
in this action as amicus curiae also have an interest in a timely
resolution of this controversy.
Nevertheless, the court will grant defendants' motion for
an extension of time because it appears that DNA testing may
assist in the ultimate resolution of the parties' controversy.
The court will grant the full six-month extension that defendants
have requested because it is important that the laboratories
have sufficient time to properly conduct the tests. An unreliable
tests is of little use to anyone and, in the long run, might
delay matters even further.
Though the court has sought to avoide micro-management of
the government's decision making process, court intervention
has been needed to keep the process moving at all. Accordingly,
the court will require defendants to file a work plan no later
than April 10, 2000. This plan shall describe the action necessary
to complete any remaining tests and studies, identify who will
perform each required tqsk, and indicate when each of the necessary
tasks will be performed.
Defendnts shall promptly notify the court if they fall behind
schedule, or if complications arise. Beginning on May 1, 2000,
defendants shall also file monthly progress reports by the 1st
day of each month. Because the Bonnichsen plaintiffs possess
a high degree of expertise in the analysis of skeletal remains,
defendants shall consult with them (in addition to any consultation
with others, such as the Tribes) to ensure that appropriate procedures
are followed in conducting any DNA testing.
Conclusion
Defendants' motion to modify the court's order of September 21,
1999 (#62) is GRANTED. Defendants shall reply to the Bonnnichsen
plaintiffs' study request by September 24, 2000. Defendants shall
consult with these plaintiffs concerning the testing procedures
to be followed, shall file a work plan no later than April 10,
2000, shall file monthly progress reports on the 1st day of each
month thereafter, and shall promptly notify the court if they
fall behind schedule in implementing the plan.
Dated this 8th Day of March, 2000.
(signed)
John Jelderks, United States Magistrate Judge
Return to Opinions and Orders
|
