Joint Case Management Plan — Ocean City v. United States Department of Interior, No. 1:24-cv-03111-SAG

Summary

Joint Case Management Plan in Mayor and City Council of Ocean City, Maryland, et al. v. United States Department of Interior, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03111-SAG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, filed 12/08/25 as Document 123. The parties agree on deadlines for lodging the Administrative Record, including certification of the Administrative Record(s) by February 10, 2026, and on cross-motions for summary judgment beginning with Plaintiffs' opening motion on April 13, 2026. They disagree on whether Plaintiffs' claims and US Wind's counter and cross claims should be adjudicated on the same schedule. Federal Defendants and Plaintiffs propose separate schedules, while US Wind proposes that, once the court rules on the pending motions to dismiss, an administrative record for its claims be lodged 30 days later.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
(Baltimore Division)

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF OCEAN
)
CITY, MARYLAND, et al.,

)

)
Plaintiffs,

)
  v.

)
Case No.: 1:24-cv-03111-SAG

)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

)

INTERIOR, et al.,

)

)

Federal Defendants,

)
  and

)

)
US WIND, INC.

)

)
Defendant-Intervenor.

)

)

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG     Document 123     Filed 12/08/25     Page 1 of 8

\\4164-8055-5874  v1

I.
Schedule for Lodging Administrative Record For Plaintiffs’ Claims and Related
Motions

The Parties have agreed on the following deadlines for lodging the Administrative
Record for resolving Plaintiffs’ claims:

Certification of Administrative Record(s) for
agency actions Plaintiffs challenge

February 10, 2026.

Plaintiffs/ US Wind raise any alleged
insufficiencies of AR
March 4, 2026

Motions to Complete Record(s) or for Extra-
Record Evidence
March 17, 2026

Should any party move to supplement the record(s) for, or for the court to consider extra-record
evidence in its review of, the agency actions that Plaintiffs challenge, such motion will have the
effect of vacating the summary judgment briefing schedule. The parties will present a new
schedule within 14 days after the court’s resolution of the motion to supplement the record or for
extra-record evidence.
II.
Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs’ Claims
The parties agree that Plaintiffs’ claims should be resolved via cross-motions for summary
judgment according to the following schedule:
Plaintiffs' file opening Motion for Summary
Judgment
April 13, 2026
Defending Parties' Combined Oppositions and
Cross Motions
May 28, 2026

Plaintiff's Combined Reply in Support of and
Opposition to Cross Motions
July 13, 2026
Defending Parties' Replies in Support of Cross
Motions
August 3, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG     Document 123     Filed 12/08/25     Page 2 of 8

2

III.
Schedule for US Wind’s Counter and Cross Claims
The Parties disagree as to whether adjudication of Plaintiffs’ and US Wind’s claims should
occur simultaneously. The Parties’ disputed positions on that issue are outlined below.
Federal Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ position: Federal Defendants and Plaintiffs propose
that Plaintiffs’ claims and US Winds counter- and cross-claims should be adjudicated on different
schedules because the claims challenge different alleged agency actions and because Plaintiffs and
Federal Defendants have each moved to dismiss US Wind’s claims.
First, briefing Plaintiffs’ claims and US Wind’s claims simultaneously is unnecessary and
would not provide any added judicial economy because the claims challenge different alleged
agency actions and will therefore have different administrative records and legal bases. Plaintiffs’
claims challenge Federal Defendants approvals associated with US Wind and the related
environmental reviews. See ECF No. 32 at 6. US Wind’s claims are based on Federal Defendants’
alleged “determination to vacate, rescind or otherwise withdraw or undermine the Federal
Approvals.” Cross Claims ¶ 55. Similarly, the administrative records would differ in, at a
minimum, temporal scope. Though Federal Defendants dispute that US Wind has challenged a
final agency action (and thus there is no administrative record to compile), the supposed action is
based on events and documents that all occur after BOEM’s COP approval and NMFS’s Letter of
Authorization—the actions Plaintiffs challenge in their claims. Thus, none of those post-COP
approval documents would appropriately be included in an administrative record for Plaintiffs’
claims. See Dow AgroSciences LLC v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 707 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir.
2013) (“[A] court must only consider the record made before the agency at the time the agency
Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG     Document 123     Filed 12/08/25     Page 3 of 8

3

acted.”). There is no reason to brief these disparate claims, based on different actions with different
administrative records, at the same time.
Second, adjudicating the claims together would amount to a delay in resolving Plaintiffs’
claims. That is because Federal Defendants and Plaintiffs have each filed dispositive motions to
dismiss US Wind’s cross claims and counter claims, respectively. Those motions need to be
resolved before the parties turn to the merits of those cross and counter claims. Case management
planning on US Wind’s counter and cross claims makes little sense until the parties and the Court
know which claims, if any, will proceed. See MJ Enter. Holdings, Inc. v. Spiffy Franchising, LLC,
No. 1:24-cv-3194-RDB, 2025 LX 113244, at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 10, 2025) (“[A] motion that may
resolve the entire action favors a stay on the basis of judicial economy.”).
In the meantime, however, the parties can move forward with Plaintiffs claims, including
lodging the administrative record and briefing cross motions for summary judgment. Should the
Court resolve the pending motions to dismiss such that one or more of US Wind’s claims survives,
the parties can, if appropriate, revisit the schedule for Plaintiffs’ claims and determine if there are
any efficiencies to be gained by consolidating proceedings. But for present, the motions to dismiss
should be resolved before discussing a case management plan for US Wind’s claims.
For these reasons, it is Federal Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ position that the Parties submit
a schedule for resolution of any remaining US Wind claims 14 days after the Court rules on
Plaintiff and Federal Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
US Wind’s position: US Wind understood that the Court directed the parties to reach
agreement on a schedule for summary judgment as to all claims in this case. Accordingly, US
Wind has diligently attempted to engage with Federal Defendants and Plaintiffs on a
Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG     Document 123     Filed 12/08/25     Page 4 of 8

4

comprehensive briefing schedule, agreeing on multiple occasions to accommodate Federal
Defendants and Plaintiffs requests for additional time and deferral of briefing deadlines.
US Wind cannot, however, acquiesce to Federal Defendants’ and Plaintiffs insistence on
omitting any schedule for resolving US Wind’s Cross Claims and Counterclaims on summary
judgment. The Court asked the parties to propose an orderly schedule for resolving this case in its
entirety and as such, US Wind has proposed a schedule that includes its Cross and Counterclaims.
are
Federal Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ theory that Plaintiffs’ claims can be resolved separately
from US Wind’s claims is untenable. Federal Defendants are taking the position that they can
reconsider their formal approval for the Project’s Construction and Operation Plan at any time,
regardless of how the Court decides the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, which demonstrates the need
to resolve these issues globally with the benefit of the Court’s direction.
Moreover, the whole notion that Federal Defendants will litigate Plaintiffs’ claims
adversely to Plaintiffs is not credible.. For the Court to consider the Federal Defendants’ summary
judgment briefing on Plaintiffs’ claims, without simultaneously considering US Wind’s challenge
to the Federal Defendants’ abandonment of their Lease and statutory obligations, would be a waste
of judicial resources and a miscarriage of justice.
There is no reason why the parties cannot reach agreement on an orderly schedule for
submission of the administrative record and summary judgment briefing as to both Plaintiffs’
claims and US Wind’s claims. US Wind submits that the scheduling for its claims should follow
the model already agreed to for Plaintiffs’ claims, starting with lodging of the administrative record
on the agency actions challenged by US Wind (if any such record exists) 30 days after the date of
the Court’s ruling on the pending motions to dismiss. Supplementations of the administrative
Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG     Document 123     Filed 12/08/25     Page 5 of 8

5

record and briefing on cross motions for summary judgment would then proceed according to the
intervals established by the agreed schedule for briefing summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’
claims. The critical point is that Federal Defendants and Plaintiffs cannot permissibly ask the Court
to decide summary judgment in this case without considering US Wind’s Cross Claims on the
merits.

Dated: December 8, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Toyja E. Kelley
Toyja E. Kelley, Sr. (D. Md. Bar No. 26949)
Emily Huggins Jones (pro hac vice)
Gregory L. Waterworth (D. Md. Bar No. 20938)
TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP
701 8th Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 220-6900
Facsimile: (202) 220-6945
toyja.kelley@troutman.com
emily.hugginsjones@troutman.com
greg.waterworth@troutman.com

Hilary Tompkins (pro hac vice)
Sean Marotta (pro hac vice)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 13th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-5617
hilary.tompkins@hoganlovells.com
sean.marotta@hoganlovells.com

David Newmann (pro hac vice)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1735 Market St., 23d Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 675-4600
david.newmann@hoganlovells.com

Attorneys
for
Defendant-Intervenor
and
Crossclaim Plaintiff US Wind, Inc.

Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG     Document 123     Filed 12/08/25     Page 6 of 8

6

/s/ Nanci G. Marzulla

Nancie G. Marzulla (pro hac vice)
Roger J. Marzulla (pro hac vice)
MARZULLA LAW, LLC
1150 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 822-6760

Bruce F. Bright (Bar No. 27236)
6200 Coastal Hwy., Suite 200
Ocean City, Maryland 21842
Tel: 410-723-1400
Fax: 410-723-1861
bbright@ajgalaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/Adma Gustafson

ADAM R.F. GUSTAFSON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division

DEVON TICE (CA Bar No. 357918)
SAMUEL VICE (CA Bar No. 324687)
Natural Resources Section
BONNIE BALLARD (MD Bar No. 2211280027)
Wildlife & Marine Resources Section
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, DC 20044-7611
Tel: 202-514-4352 (Tice)
Email: devon.tice@usdoj.gov
Tel: 202-305-0434 (Vice)
Email: Samuel.vice@usdoj.gov
Tel: (202) 305-1513 (Ballard)
Email: bonnie.m.ballard@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG     Document 123     Filed 12/08/25     Page 7 of 8

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on December 8, 2025, I filed and served the foregoing motion on counsel
of record through this Court’s CM/ECF system.

By: /s/ Toyja E. Kelley

Toyja E. Kelley, Sr. (D. Md. Bar No. 26949)

Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG     Document 123     Filed 12/08/25     Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

collins_sba_rrf__docket-69311769__doc-123__id-461387205__Miscellaneous_Correspondence.pdf

Size

202,921 bytes

SHA-256

495e5234361ae9912a1aa27096b63bb8650f81665fa1406a83043ed73a231325

Our copy

collins_sba_rrf__docket-69311769__doc-123__id-461387205__Miscellaneous_Correspondence.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com