Wild Fish Conservancy v. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

[3] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [5] WILD FISH CONSERVANCY, CASE NO. 21-cv-169 [6] Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 7 STAY ORDER AWARDING v. LITIGATION EXPENSES WITHOUT 8 POSTING BOND WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF 9 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, [22] Defendants. [23] 1 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Notice of Appeal and 2 Motion to Stay Order Awarding Litigation Expenses Without Posting Bond, seeking 3 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 5 awarding litigation fees and expenses is affirmed, they will pay the fees and related 6 expenses to Plaintiff, that there is no risk of prejudice to Plaintiffs and or of 7 Defendants becoming insolvent. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants’ motion given 8 the proposed terms. See Dkt. No. 100. 9 This Court has broad discretion to waive Rule 62’s bond requirement if it sees 10 fit. Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 881 F.2d 788, 796-97 (9th Cir. 1989), 11 vacated on other grounds, 929 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1990). Based on Defendants’ 12 representations and Plaintiff’s non-opposition, the Court finds cause to GRANT the 13 motion and waive the bond requirement. 14 It is so ORDERED. 15 Dated this 20th day of May, 2024. [16] A 17 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge