Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01502/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01502-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVES

TO TOXICS, a non-profit

corporation, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-05-1502 LKK/JFM

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On December 13, 2005, a Status Conference was held in the

above-captioned case. A scheduling order was subsequently issued

stating that plaintiffs, if after examining the administrative

record believed it would be necessary to conduct additional

discovery, they must file a motion with the court by January 10,

2006. Plaintiffs have filed such a motion by the aforementioned

date.

////

Case 2:05-cv-01502-LKK -JFM Document 21 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 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

1 Plaintiffs explain that this experiment was initiated in

response to requests in 1999 by the public, including plaintiffs

and their members, to compare herbicide and non-herbicide treatment

methods on test plots within the Cottonwood project. The

experiment began in 2002 and herbicide treatment was scheduled for

“spring of 2005.”

2

Plaintiffs make two requests for discovery: (1) documents or

information related to an experiment being conducted by the Forest

Service;1 and (2) Documents or Information regarding certain “fuel

breaks” that were created for fire protection. In their opposition

brief, defendants assert that the material relating to the

experiment is not material to the decision under review, since it

had not yet been conducted when the decision was made in February

2005. Opp’n at 5. Given plaintiffs’ arguments in their reply

brief, however, the court grants their motion for further

discovery. 

Plaintiffs explain that the information on the test plots is

relevant because “it goes directly to the question of whether the

Forest Service’s proposed action will achieve the project

objectives as assumed by Defendants and whether the herbicide use

results in significant impacts.” Repl. at 4. They elaborate that

some of the documents requested were produced prior to the Record

of Decision. They also explain that some of the documents were

produced after the February 2005 Record of decision, but that they

should be allowed discovery because the test plot results will

“indicate a lack of effectiveness in achieving project objectives

or demonstrate harm from herbicide use,” and because “such

information would support plaintiffs’ comments to the Forest

Case 2:05-cv-01502-LKK -JFM Document 21 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 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

2 The Ninth Circuit allows a court to consider extra-record

materials if (1) necessary to determine whether the agency has

considered all relevant factors and explained its decision, (2)

when the agency has relied on documents not on the record, (3) when

supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms

or complex subject matter, and (4) when plaintiffs make a showing

of agency bad faith. National Audubon Soc. v. U.S. Forest Service,

46 F.3d 1437, 1447, & n. 9 (9th Cir. 1993)(citation omitted).

3

Service and help the Court determine whether the agency has

considered all relevant factors.”2 Repl. at 5. Finally, they note

that the information relating to impacts from herbicide use on the

test plots would be relevant to their request for injunctive

relief. Id. Plaintiffs have offered enough to suggest that it is

appropriate to permit discovery on the test plot experiment data

because such information bears on“whether the agency has considered

all relevant factors and explained its decision” or whether it

failed to take a hard look at the issues before issuing the ROD.

National Audubon Soc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 46 F.3d 1437, 1447,

& n. 9 (9th Cir. 1993)(citation omitted). 

Plaintiffs also maintain that the actions of the Forest

Service in constructing fuel breaks on the Cottonwood Project is

relevant because they relate to plaintiffs’ claims that there are

“feasible, non-herbicide alternatives to effectively reducing fuels

- and fire hazard on the Cottonwood Project.” Repl. at 4. Because

plaintiffs’ second cause of action under NEPA charges defendants

with failing to consider reasonable alternatives, this information

may bear on that claim. 

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-01502-LKK -JFM Document 21 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s request to conduct limited discovery related

to the two requests described in their motion is GRANTED.

2. All dates are VACATED.

3. The briefing scheduled for the parties cross-motions is

RESET as follows:

a. Cross-motions for summary judgment must be filed no

later than 4:30 p.m. on May 5, 2006.

b. Opposition briefs must be filed no later than 4:30

p.m. on June 5, 2006.

c. Reply Briefs must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m.

on June 20, 2006.

4. Oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions is SET for

July 14, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 23, 2006

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-01502-LKK -JFM Document 21 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 4