Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04980/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04980-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04717-PJH

Case No. 19-cv-04975-PJH

Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH

Related Cases

ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO MANUALLY FILE 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

LA CLINICA DE LA RAZA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the court in each of the above-captioned, related cases is defendants’

administrative motion for leave to manually file the administrative record. Defendants 

affirm that they have provided the administrative record—in what they believe is its 

entirety—to all plaintiffs in each action. Mot. at 1 & n.1. They argue that the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s Local Rules do not require filing with the court a 

Case 4:19-cv-04980-PJH Document 149 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

copy of the entire administrative record. Id. at 1. They also argue that the record is too 

voluminous to file on the court’s publicly-available docket, and they accordingly seek 

leave to send a copy of certain materials to the court on physical media (a hard drive or 

DVDs), which would be inaccessible to the public. No party has opposed defendants’

administrative motion, and the deadline to do so has passed.

The plaintiffs have brought certain causes of action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706. 

When reviewing an agency action under that section, “the court shall review the whole 

record or those parts of it cited by a party[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (emphasis added). 

Defendants represent that the whole record consists of “380,287 pages comprising 

approximately 123 Gigabytes of electronic information,” and as such would require 

“someone working full-time multiple months” to prepare and file with the court. Mot. at 1–

2. Alternatively, they estimate that another method of filing would take “approximately 

4,469 hours,” or “approximately 558 work days (or over two years when accounting for 

holidays and weekends) to file the record through ECF[.]” Id. at 2–3.

In short, defendants represent that the whole record would take months, or even 

years, to prepare and file on the court’s docket—to say nothing of the time it would take 

the court to read and analyze such materials. Given that the “whole record” is too 

voluminous to be filed with the court (much less reviewed by the court), the court’s review 

of the administrative record for plaintiffs’ APA claims will be limited to those parts of the 

record cited by a party. The court will not consider portions of the record that are not 

available on the court’s public docket. If a party does not believe the entirety of the 

record is necessary for the resolution of its case, it shall file through ECF only those 

portions of the record cited to in their briefs. Any portions not filed though ECF will not be 

considered by the court as part of the record on review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2020

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-04980-PJH Document 149 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 2