Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02296/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02296-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Center for Biological Diversity; and 

Maricopa Audubon Society, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

 S.M.R. Jewell, in her official capacity as 

Secretary of the United States Department 

of the Interior; and Daniel Ashe, in his 

official capacity as Director of the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02296-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiffs have filed motions to supplement the administrative record. Docs. 32, 

33. If the Court denies the motion, Plaintiffs request that the Court take judicial notice 

of a report from the United States Inspector General (“IG report”). Doc. 33 at 2. The 

motion has been fully briefed. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.1

 

I. Legal Standard. 

Judicial review of agency action is generally limited to review of the 

administrative record, and the task of the reviewing court is to apply the appropriate 

standard of review under the Administrative Procedures Act based on the record the 

agency presents to the reviewing court. Animal Def. Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 

 

1

 The requests for oral argument are denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:12-cv-02296-DGC Document 56 Filed 01/13/14 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

1436 (9th Cir. 1988), amended, 867 F.2d 1244 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Friends of the 

Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir.1986), and Florida Power & Light Co. v. 

Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985)). The administrative record consists of “all 

documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by agency decision-makers 

and includes evidence contrary to the agency’s position.” Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Hodel, 840 F.2d at 1436). The focal 

point for judicial review “should be the administrative record already in existence, not 

some new record made initially in the reviewing court.” Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 

142 (1973). 

Certain circumstances justify expanding judicial review beyond the agency’s 

record. Pub. Power Council v. Johnson, 674 F.2d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 1982). The 

record may be supplemented (1) when necessary to determine whether the agency has 

considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision, (2) when the agency has 

relied on documents not in the record, (3) when necessary to explain technical terms or 

complex subject matter, or (4) when the plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad faith. 

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 450 F.3d 930, 943 (9th Cir. 

2006). “It is the plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate that one or more of these exceptions 

apply.” Parravano v. Babbitt, 837 F. Supp. 1034, 1039 (N.D. Cal. 1993) aff’d, 70 

F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 1995). 

II. Analysis.

Plaintiffs seek to supplement the record with two documents: an article by David 

Fraser from the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks which 

discusses generally peripheral species, and an excerpt from a 2008 United States 

Inspector General report detailing an investigation into certain policy decisions by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) related to endangered species. Doc. 33 at 2. 

Plaintiffs argue that both documents will assist the Court in determining “whether the 

agency has considered all relevant factors and explained its decision.” Id. at 33. 

Case 2:12-cv-02296-DGC Document 56 Filed 01/13/14 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

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 

While this exception provides an avenue for expanding an administrative record, 

the broad language of the exception must be applied cautiously to avoid swallowing the 

rule. Johnson, 674 F.2d at 794. Supplementation of a record will not be allowed 

whenever a plaintiff, in an attempt to convince a court that an agency made an unwise 

choice, argues that the agency should have considered other information. See, e.g.,

Asarco Inc. v. EPA, 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 1980 (“[C]onsideration of the 

evidence to determine the correctness or wisdom of the agency’s decision is not 

permitted[.]”). Nor will supplementation be permitted merely to bolster the record or 

supply background information. Hintz, 800 F.2d at 829 (“The discovery sought by the 

appellants might have supplied a fuller record, but otherwise does not address issues 

not already there.”). Rather, the moving party must make a viable argument that 

failure to supplement the record will “effectively frustrate judicial review.” Hodel, 

840 F.2d at 1436. 

 A. Fraser Publication. 

Plaintiffs claim that the Fraser publication (Doc. 32-1) will assist the Court in 

determining whether Defendants considered all relevant scientific information on the 

significance of peripheral populations before they decided that the desert bald eagle is not 

eligible for listing consideration under FWS’s Distinct Population Segment (“DPS”) 

Policy. Doc. 33 at 3-5. Plaintiffs argue that because FWS previously relied on this study 

to make a DPS determination regarding marbled murrelets, the study should have been 

used by FWS in its desert bald eagle determination. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs contend that FWS 

did not give full consideration to the “significance” determination in its report because it 

“summarily dismissed – in only two sentences – the idea that loss of desert eagles might 

have a negative effect on bald eagles as whole.” Doc. 48 at 4. 

 The relevant factors exception applies, however, only “when Federal Defendants 

fail to consider a general subject matter that is demonstrably relevant to the outcome of 

the agency’s decision, not when specific hypotheses and/or conclusions are omitted from 

consideration.” Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 923 F.Supp.2d 1226, 1234 (E.D. 

Case 2:12-cv-02296-DGC Document 56 Filed 01/13/14 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

Cal. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiffs acknowledge that FWS considered the 

general subject matter, but argue that the nature of the consideration was perfunctory and 

inadequate. Doc 48 at 4. As noted above, however, a party may not supplement the 

record merely to bolster the record on the general subject matter addressed by the agency. 

See Hintz, 800 F.2d at 829. 

 Further, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that failure to include this report 

“effectively frustrates judicial review.” Hodel, 840 F.2d at 1436. Plaintiffs make no 

argument that failure to include the Fraser publication frustrates judicial review. Instead, 

they seem dissatisfied with the conclusions reached by Defendants and wish to 

supplement the record with a report that could be favorable to their position. 

B. IG Report. 

Plaintiffs claim that a 2008 IG report (Doc. 32-2) should be added to the record 

because it is necessary to determine whether the agency considered all relevant factors 

and explained its decision. Doc. 33 at 5. Plaintiffs allege that the report is “central to the 

issue of whether or not [Defendants] properly and consistently interpreted its DPS 

Policy” in determining that desert eagles were not eligible for listing as a DPS. Id. 

 The IG report details an investigation conducted after a 2008 ruling in which 

Judge Murguia found Defendants’ 90-day finding regarding the desert bald eagle to be 

“arbitrary and capricious.” Doc. 32-2 at 8. The report explains a dispute between the 

FWS Washington office and the FWS Region 2 office which led to the mishandled 90-

day finding. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs contend that the IG report should be included as evidence 

that Defendants did not consistently apply DPS Policy for purposes of its 12-month 

finding. Doc. 48 at 6. As discussed above, however, admitting non-record evidence is 

permissible only when the “agency entirely failed to consider a general subject matter 

relevant to its decision making.” Pinnacle Armor, 923 F.Supp.2d at 1235. Plaintiffs 

have not made this showing, 

 In addition, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that failure to include this data 

“effectively frustrates judicial review.” Hodel, 840 F.2d at 1436. In its 12-month 

Case 2:12-cv-02296-DGC Document 56 Filed 01/13/14 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

finding, FWS clearly states that it continues consistently to apply DPS policy. 77 Fed. 

Reg. 25808. The IG report centers on an inter-agency dispute that occurred in 2006, and 

the Court is not persuaded that the report is necessary to determine whether FWS applied 

the proper DPS policy in February 2010. 

 Plaintiffs also argue that the IG report is admissible under the bad faith exception. 

Doc. 33 at 6. Plaintiffs allege that the IG report provides evidence that improper 

behavior occurred in the past with regard to FWS’ consideration of the desert eagle 

petition. Id. They essentially argue that FWS’ mishandling of the 90-day finding in 

August 2006 is proof of a culture of improper behavior within the agency and that the IG 

report is proof of continued bad faith in this case. This argument is without merit. For 

the bad faith exception to apply, “[n]ormally there must be a strong showing of bad faith 

or improper behavior before the court may inquire into the thought processes of 

administrative decision makers.” Animal Def. Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1437 

(9th Cir. 1988), amended, 867 F.2d 1244 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). The IG 

report about 2006 events does not constitute a strong showing of bad faith in 2010. 

C. Judicial Notice.

 Plaintiffs ask the Court to take judicial notice of the IG report. Doc. 33 at 7. This 

argument is best decided in the context of the parties’ summary judgment arguments. 

The parties should address the issue of judicial notice of the IG report in their summary 

judgment briefing. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions to supplement (Docs. 32, 33) are 

denied. 

 Dated this 13th day of January, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02296-DGC Document 56 Filed 01/13/14 Page 5 of 5