Wild Fish Conservancy v. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE WILD FISH CONSERVANCY, CASE NO. 21-cv-169 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 7 STAY ORDER AWARDING v. LITIGATION EXPENSES WITHOUT 8 POSTING BOND WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE; KELLY SUSEWIND, in his official capacity as the 10 Director of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife; BARBARA BAKER, in 11 her official capacity as Chair of the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission; 12 MOLLY LINVILLE, in her official capacity as Vice Chair of the Washington 13 Fish & Wildlife Commission; JAMES ANDERSON, in his official capacity as a 14 member of the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission; LORNA SMITH, in 15 her official capacity as a member of the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission; 16 JOHN LEHMKUHL, in his official capacity as a member of the Washington 17 Fish & Wildlife Commission; TIM RAGEN, in his official capacity as a 18 member of the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission; MELANIE 19 ROWLAND, in her official capacity as a member of the Washington Fish & 20 Wildlife Commission; and KIM THORNBURN, in her official capacity as 21 a member of the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission, Defendants.

1 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Notice of Appeal and Motion to Stay Order Awarding Litigation Expenses Without Posting Bond, seeking relief from Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b)’s requirement that they post bond pending appeal.

4 See Dkt. No. 95, 96. In their motion, Defendants represent that if the Court’s Order awarding litigation fees and expenses is affirmed, they will pay the fees and related expenses to Plaintiff, that there is no risk of prejudice to Plaintiffs and or of Defendants becoming insolvent. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants’ motion given the proposed terms. See Dkt. No. 100.

9 This Court has broad discretion to waive Rule 62’s bond requirement if it sees fit. Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 881 F.2d 788, 796-97 (9th Cir. 1989), vacated on other grounds, 929 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1990). Based on Defendants’ representations and Plaintiff’s non-opposition, the Court finds cause to GRANT the motion and waive the bond requirement.

14 It is so ORDERED.

15 Dated this 20th day of May, 2024.

A 17 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge