Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Plaintiffs’ motion to admit extra-record evidence in their challenge to a 2022 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion concerning malathion. The court found some exhibits were already part of the administrative record, while others did not satisfy the narrow exceptions for extra-record evidence or were barred as post-decisional materials. The denial was without prejudice as to certain exhibits that may be relevant during a later remedy phase, and the court limited possible consideration of the Clauser declaration to standing.
Holdings
- Judicial review of the biological opinion is generally limited to the administrative record, and extra-record evidence may be admitted only under narrow, narrowly construed exceptions.
- Exhibit 6 could not be admitted because the biological opinion already considered the relevant whooping-crane pesticide-exposure information, and plaintiffs sought to use the exhibit to challenge the agency's scientific conclusions.
- Exhibits 2 and 5 could not be admitted as extra-record evidence under the relevant-factors exception.
- Exhibits 7 and 15 were denied without prejudice to later admission during a remedy phase, and portions of the Hartl declaration and the Clauser declaration could be considered only for non-merits purposes identified by the court, including remedy or standing.
Questions Presented
- Whether documents already incorporated into or included in the administrative record could be admitted as extra-record evidence.
- Whether disputed documents concerning pesticide exposure and usage data satisfied the relevant-factors exception to the administrative-record rule.
- Whether post-decisional documents could be admitted as extra-record evidence on the merits or instead reserved for possible consideration during a remedy phase.
- Whether portions of the Hartl declaration and the Clauser declaration could be considered for merits purposes or only for standing or other non-merits purposes.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177 (1997)(followed)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985)(followed)
- Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 923 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 1234 (E.D. Cal. 2013)(followed)
- Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. Zinke, 889 F.3d 584, 600 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Department of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.